2. Analysis of whether the State carried out its duty to investigate with due diligence and in a reasonable time 200. First, the Commission notes that in Peru amnesty laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492 were in force from 1995 to 2001; they impeded the investigations of serious human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. Both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court have ruled on several occasions that those amnesty laws are incompatible with Peru’s treaty obligations, as they are a source of impunity for those violations.188 Specifically, in Barrios Altos case against Peru, the Inter-American Court declared that the amnesty laws “are incompatible with the Convention … [and so] lack legal effect.”189 Specifically, in the Court’s interpretation it found: Enactment of a law that is manifestly incompatible with the obligations undertaken by a State Party to the Convention is per se a violation of the Convention for which the State incurs international responsibility [and that] given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 constitute, the decision in the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case has generic effects.”190 201. Considering that those laws were in force generally during this period, and mindful of the absolute lack of information on investigations conducted in the cases that are the subject matter of this report while they were in force, the Commission considers it sufficiently shown that the Amnesty Laws constituted a legal obstacle that impeded the investigations of forced disappearances committed in the instant case. 202. Second, the Commission considers that in cases such as those addressed in this report, it is up to the State to show that its authorities carried out their obligations under the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons from the time that it came into force for the state in question. Specifically, the State has the burden of showing that the authorities proceeded diligently with the investigations after being informed of a disappearance. Before getting into the analysis of the investigations carried out in this case, the Commission notes that the State produced minimal information in this respect. 203. Accordingly, the analysis by the Commission is based on the scant information available on the investigations in each of the cases. a) In the case of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, while the Commission does not have a copy of the internal files, from the information provided by the parties it is noted that even though this forced disappearance was reported two days later to the Office of the 15th Criminal Prosecutor of Lima (Décima Quinta Fiscalía Penal de Lima), no criminal investigation was opened into the crime reported, nor were any immediate actions taken such as those that would correspond to a report of forced disappearance. The investigative measures carried out by the State, according to information it has provided, consisted of sending of official notes to various authorities requesting information from their data bases. According to the information that has come to the attention of the Commission, as of the date of this report no criminal inquiry has even been initiated into the disappearance of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, which makes clear the failure of the State to carry out its duty to investigate. b) In the case of Teresa Díaz Aparicio, the IACHR observes that in response to the initial petition of September 2, 1992, that is 15 days after the disappearance of Professor Diaz Aparicio, the State sent official notes or notices to several authorities inquiring into her situation. There is no information suggesting that the Public Ministry ordered that any actions be taken immediately in order to clarify the facts and establish the whereabouts of Teresa Díaz Aparicio, especially taking into account the specific indicia in 188 IACHR. Application before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the Republic of Peru. Case 11,528 “Barrios Altos,” May 10, 2000. Para. 126. 189 I/A Court HR, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paras. 41-44 and fourth operative point. 190 I/A Court HR, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, paragraph 18 and second operative point.