continue the investigations to locate him. Subsequently, it was decreed that the case be provisionally archived, as there was no certainty as to who detained Néstor Rojas Medina. In September 2004, the mother of Néstor Rojas Medina presented a new criminal complaint to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves, which began to be processed, also in September 2004; official notes were sent to several authorities requesting information, and in April 2005, statements were received in the context of the inquiry. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that there is no information on any investigative step taken in the period from 2005 to 2011. Even though in 2011 it was ordered that certain investigative measures be taken, there is no information on whether they were actually carried out. It should be mentioned that some of them were of vital importance for the investigation, as in the case of the official notes to the Ministries of Defense and Interior, asking for information about the chiefs in charge of the police station in the area on the date of the disappearance. Despite that, there is no follow-up measure. To the contrary, the State only reported that in January 2013, the Office of the First Corporate Provincial Prosecutor of Tocache ruled to archive the investigation. e) In the case of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, her mother filed a criminal complaint and writ of habeas corpus in October 1992. The Commission observes that it was not until July 22, 2003 that the Office of the Fourth Provincial Prosecutor of Huancayo included the case of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello in the investigations he was undertaking. Subsequently, on March 5, 2010, a criminal complaint was formalized against the presumed perpetrators of the crime of aggravated kidnapping (secuestro agravado). By ruling of September 3, 2013, a complaint was formalized against the Commander of the 31st Division of the Peruvian Army and the Chief of the Civic Action Base of the UNCP, as the presumed indirect perpetrators. The Commission does not have information about investigative measures carried out since September 2013, in the context of that criminal proceeding. Based on the information produced by the State, the victim’s case was included in the group of cases of forced disappearance, without having specified in detail the investigative measures taken with respect to Ms. Tenicela Tello. The Commission also notes that in that ruling of September 3, 2013, the Public Ministry stated for the record the refusal of the Ministry of Defense to produce information relevant to the investigation. 204. The Commission notes that in none of the cases has the State provided information on specific actions taken immediately, upon learning of the disappearances alleged, to determine the whereabouts of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, or Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, or to protect their life and integrity. In addition, all the criminal proceedings that were initiated in this respect have been subject to unwarranted delays and prolonged periods in which no step was taken aimed at clarifying the facts. From the description in the preceding paragraphs, it turns out that the few investigative steps that have been taken were from any point of view insufficient and do not respond to the specific indicia that result from the reports by their family members, other evidence elements, and the relationship of such reports and evidence with the already-established context of the systematic use of forced disappearance. The information available indicates that the very limited investigative activity does not respond to that context or to the modus operandi specifically established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, even though, as already analyzed, in the five cases there is information that associates them with the State. Moreover, in the case of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, the Commission observes that no criminal investigation was even opened into his disappearance, even though there was knowledge of it within days of the facts. 205. The Commission observes that as of the day of the adoption of this report, 23 to 31 years have elapsed since the beginning of these five forced disappearances, they have not yet been clarified, and the State has not presented an explanation that would justify the prolonged delays and lack of initiative. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the State has engaged in an excessive delay in the investigations and that they are not based on the complexity of the matter but rather on the lack of due diligence by the State. 206. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru has not deployed the means necessary to perform its duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish, within a reasonable time, and with due diligence, those responsible for the five forced disappearances analyzed in this report. Accordingly the Commission concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for violating the rights to