64 208. In addition, the representatives alleged that the State violated the right to know the truth, inasmuch as it has concealed information relevant to the case and has not implemented the necessary proceedings and mechanisms to clarify the truth of what happened, in violation of Articles 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, and non-compliance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, “understood as an autonomous and independent right.” 209. The State referred to the criminal proceedings in the domestic courts with the final judgment (ejecutoría suprema) of May 29, 2013, which resulted in the conviction of Oscar Alberto Carrera Gonzáles as a primary accomplice to crimes against life, the person and health, in the form of aggravated homicide to the detriment of the fifteen alleged disappeared victims. It argued that the purpose of this process was to avoid impunity for the facts, and therefore the State has complied with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. It held that the rulings issued by the national courts have respected judicial guarantees throughout the judicial proceedings, without violating any right protected by the Convention. 210. Regarding the first months of the investigation, it described the steps taken by the authorities in response to the various complaints filed. In this regard, it stressed that it was not indifferent to the events that had taken place and that there was no inaction on the part of the State; rather, it insisted that every effort was made to investigate the facts. It also indicated that the investigations had ensured the petitioners’ full access and ability to act at all stages of the proceedings. 211. In relation to the steps taken to arrest the two absentee defendants, Javier Bendezú Vargas and Denis Pacheco Zambrano, the State indicated that these individuals were subject to national and international arrest warrants and INTERPOL “Red Notice” alerts, and described the efforts made at the domestic level to capture them. 212. As for the alleged violation of the reasonable time limit, the State argued that the Court has already sanctioned Peru for the repercussions caused by trial systems contrary to the Peruvian Constitution and the Convention, and that in compliance with the Court’s mandate, the State has taken steps to make the national justice system compatible with international standards. Thus, it considered that the Court should evaluate the State’s efforts to comply with said precedents related to the amnesty laws, given that this situation has been rectified. In this regard, it argued that in order to establish an alleged violation of the principle of reasonable time in this case, the period of time should be calculated from June 22, 2005 - the date on which the Senior Prosecutor of the Mixed Superior Prosecutor’s Office of Huancavelica ordered the case to be reopened - until May 29, 2013, the date on which Supreme Executory Judgment became final, which gives a term of 7 years and 11 months. It also argued that the process followed against Javier Bendezú and others for the crime of aggravated homicide against fifteen members of the Santa Bárbara peasant community is complex, due to the seriousness of the facts investigated and the number of defendants, a matter that is corroborated in the various decisions and judgments issued in the domestic courts. In addition, in order to clarify the facts and determine the responsibility of the accused, it has been necessary to resort to various evidentiary means, some of them specialized. 213. Regarding the actions of the military justice system, the State pointed out that at the time of the events of the case (1991) the standards applied by the Court on military justice differed markedly from the standards used nowadays, in terms of the requirement of competence, independence and impartiality of military courts, and regarding their jurisdiction to hear cases of human rights violations. For the State, it is clear that the standards currently established by the inter-American human rights system could not be required of Peru in the present case, since this