18 91. On September 12, 1995, the Criminal Judge of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima asked the Judge of the Third Permanent Court of the Second Army Judicial District to order the immediate release 80 of the defendant, Sergeant Second-Class Evangelista Pinedo. 92. On December 12, 1995 – that is, more than a year after the military courts filed the request for recusal and when the proceedings had already been archived – the 27th Criminal Court of Lima dismissed the request for recusal on the grounds that the case file contained no documents to justify such an application and given that the offense under investigation had been classified as simple homicide, “there being no extenuating factors regarding the actions of the accused who, instead of 81 assisting the victims, fled the scene regardless of the seriousness of the incident.” Consequently, the resolution states that an order should be given for the accused to be brought before that court for his 82 prosecution, but that did not happen. Reopened proceedings before the civilian jurisdiction 93. The IACHR analyzed the amnesty laws and their consequences in 1996, and it found that Law No. 26479 constituted interference in the functions of the judiciary and that Law No. 26492 “not only fails to provide an effective remedy, but goes much further, denying any possibility of appeal or of 83 bringing an objection based on human rights violations.” Consequently, the IACHR recommended “that the Peruvian State repeal Amnesty Law No. 26479, and the Law on Judicial Interpretation (No. 26492), because they were incompatible with the American Convention, and investigate, try, and punish the state 84 agents accused of human rights violations, especially violations that amount to international crimes.” 94. On March 14, 2001, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued judgment in the Barrios Altos Case, ruling that amnesty laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 were incompatible with the American 85 Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, were void of legal effect. Subsequently, the InterAmerican Court issued a judgment interpreting its judgment on the merits in which it ruled that given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 represented, its decision in the judgment 86 on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case would be applicable generally. 95. On April 19, 2001, the civil complainants filed an application with the 27th Criminal Court 87 of Lima for the proceedings to be removed from the archive and reopened. On September 10, 2001, the 27th Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima sent the 27th Criminal Court of Lima its report on the petitioners’ request, proposing that it be ruled inadmissible, on the grounds that they had attached a simple copy of the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Barrios Altos Case without following the procedure established in Article 151 of the Consolidated Text of the Organic Law of the Judiciary for the 88 execution of supranational judgments under the treaties to which Peru is a party. 80 Annex 47: Document 431-91.EDT of September 12, 1995, addressed to the Judge of the Third Permanent Court of the Second Army Judicial District, signed by María Teresa Jara García, Criminal Judge. Annex to the State’s submission of February 27, 2002. 81 Annex 35: Document of December 12, 1995, signed by María Teresa Jara García, Criminal Judge, and Alejandro Huaman García, Secretary, of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima. Annex to the State’s submission of February 27, 2002. 82 Annex 35: Document of December 12, 1995, signed by María Teresa Jara García, Criminal Judge, and Alejandro Huaman García, Secretary, of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima. Annex to the State’s submission of February 27, 2002. 83 IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, Part 4, Section IV.C. 84 IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, Part 4, Section VIII.6. 85 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C No. 75, operative paragraph 4. 86 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 3, 2001, Series C No. 83, operative paragraph 3. 87 Annex 48: Document of April 17, 2001, addressed to the Judge of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, signed by Santiago Pérez Vera, Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza, and Gloria Cano Legua. Annex to the State’s submission of December 14, 2004. 88 Annex 49: Document of August 29, 2001, signed by Dr. Fabiola J. Peña Tavera, 27th Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima. Annex to the State’s submission of December 14, 2004.