-28in a delay, preventing the criminal proceedings from being conducted within a reasonable time. iii. Extending the periods for pursuing various procedures 111. The Court notes that on April 25, 1995, May 12, 2003 and May 7, 2004 the Office of the Prosecutor requested extensions in order to carry out various procedures, which were granted by the judge (supra paras. 47, 65 and 68). On August 2, 2005 the judge extended de oficio the period for 30 days and then recused himself from hearing the case (supra paras. 70 and 71). On May 30, 2006, the Office of the Proscutor requested an extension of 20 days, which was denied by the Superior Criminal Chamber, because “the period has been extended on repeated occasions” (supra para. 73). 112. In the second procedural stage after the reopening of the proceedings, various extensions of the period were also granted. In a case where the facts and the law are not very complex, the evidence does not provide any grounds to show why the procedures could not have been carried out, and more expeditiously, during the first stage of the investigation. The Court takes note that two different domestic tribunals indicated that they had extended the period on repeated occasions and that one of them, the National Criminal Chamber, stated that “the limit for committal proceedings set by law has been exceeded” (supra para. 73). Therefore, the Court holds that the extension of the various periods after the reopening of the criminal proceedings had a negative impact on the reasonable time of the proceedings. iv. The closing of the case due to the application of the Amnesty Law 113. On September 11, 1995, the judge accepted the motion of res judicata filed by the accused based on the Amnesty Law and ordered the definitive closing of the case (supra para. 59) and, as a result, the accused was released. On April 19, 2001, the civil complainants filed a request of “desarchivamiento” of the proceedings and, on January 21, 2003, the 16th Criminal Court of Lima accepted the request and reopened the criminal case 120 (supra paras. 60 and 64). However, from the reopening to the moment that he was arrested, the accused was a “fugitive from justice” for more than five years and, therefore, it was not possible to hold an oral hearing in the case. 114. The Court notes that the proceedings were reopened by the domestic court after the Inter-American Court had determined that Amnesty Laws 26.479 and 26.492 were incompatible with the American Convention and that they lacked legal effect. The Criminal Court of Lima, therefore, indicated that “by extended application it is necessary to apply to the present case what the Inter-American Court decided, since the processing of the case […] was resolved by applying Laws [N° 26.479 and Nº 26.492]; therefore it ordered the reopening of the proceedings against [Antonio] Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo.” For its part, the State indicated that, in general, “after the Barrios Altos case, measures were adopted in favor of the position that the amnesty laws did not have any domestic legal effect.” 115. The Court notes that the domestic court determined that the proceedings should be reopened because the amnesty law had been applied; a law that this Court had held to be incompatible with the Convention. Consequently, in view of the decision of the domestic court regarding the amnesty laws and since, pursuant to the Judgment in the Barrios Altos case, this case should not have been closed, just as the period between the request to send the file to the archive and its reopening negatively affected that period. The State alleged that the period of one year and 277 days that occurred between the request and the reopening was due to the failure of the civil complainant to present a ceritified copy of the Judgment. 120