63 Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of the persons indicated in the preceding paragraph. 234 IX.III THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, AND ARTICLE I (b) OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS, AS WELL AS ARTICLES 1, 6 AND 8 OF THE INTERAMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 206. The Commission alleged that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and I (b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the eight adults and seven children who disappeared and their next of kin. In this regard, it referred in detail to the numerous complaints filed with various State authorities after the alleged detention and disappearance of the victims in this case, noting that those authorities did not order timely and necessary measures to determine their whereabouts. It also pointed out that neither of the two habeas corpus actions filed by Alejandro Huamaní on behalf of his son, Elihoref Huamaní, were effective. In addition, the Commission held that these alleged violations stemmed from: i) the submission of the case to the military justice system; ii) the fact that the criminal proceedings before the ordinary jurisdiction began only on February 26, 1992; iii) the deficiencies in the investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction during the first years; iv) a series of cover-up mechanisms; v) the application of the amnesty law in 1995; vi) the archiving of the investigation for 10 years; vii) the lack of due diligence in the search for the alleged perpetrators who are fugitives; viii) the delay of more than 20 years from the time of the events to the first and only conviction; ix) the lack of information about what happened to the remains exhumed in 1991; x) the prolonged delay of 18 years - between 1991 and 2009 - in carrying out any kind of follow-up to the forensic activities; xi) the deficiencies in current procedures for the identification of the victims’ remains, and xii) the failure to prosecute all those responsible, including high-level commanders. The Commission concluded that the courts of justice had shown a lack of diligence and willingness to conduct criminal proceedings to clarify all the facts that occurred on July 4, 1991, and to punish those responsible. Moreover, almost 20 years after the alleged forced disappearances - and with the full truth about the facts still unknown - the domestic criminal proceedings have not been effective in determining the victims’ fate or guaranteeing their rights of access to justice and to know the truth, through the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible and comprehensive reparation. 207. The representatives substantially agreed with the Commission’s arguments. They also alleged the violation of the reasonable time limit in the present case, explaining that when alleged forced disappearances are involved, the excessive duration of the process seriously affects the rights of the alleged victims’ next of kin, as it unnecessarily prolongs the pain and uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones and the whereabouts of their remains. 235 Also, see: Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 182. During the public hearing, the representatives alleged for the first time the existence of testimonies in the domestic case file that would indicate rape against the women during the operation. However, “the domestic judicial proceedings did not include these as related crimes, but as crimes subject to the statute of limitations […].” They also emphasized that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had considered that the facts did not constitute forced disappearance, applying Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code, which the Court has declared contrary to the provisions of the Convention. According to the representatives, the State has also fragmented the investigations, since Mr. Bendezú Vargas was under investigation in two different proceedings. They also objected to the failure to prosecute the two soldiers, who were minors at the time, and who participated in Operation “Apolonia.” 234 235