A/HRC/7/2 page 64 281. In October 2007, the Working Group received a seven-page communication from the Government. In this communication, the Government provided information on the actions implemented regarding the issue of enforced disappearances in Peru. Mention was made of the Amnesty Law, and the fact that the Peruvian State acknowledged that the Amnesty Law lacked legal effect, and constituted an obstacle for the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the violation of the right to justice and truth. Reference was also made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to the National Council for Reparations, and to the High-level Cross-Sector Commission in charge of following up on State actions and policies regarding peace, collective reparation and national reconciliation. The communication further referred to Law 28413 on enforced disappearances, which aims at providing family members of victims of enforced disappearance from 1980 to 2000 with the necessary tools for their rights to be acknowledged. In connection with this, the Ombudsman Office may provide the families of the victims with a certificate of absence through enforced disappearance, which enables the family to start pertinent procedures and acknowledges the status of the disappeared person. The Working Group was also informed that during 2004 and 2005, Provincial Prosecutor Offices, Courts and a National Criminal Division were created for the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations, including enforced disappearances. Information from sources 282. No information was received from sources regarding outstanding cases. General allegation 283. In 2006, information was submitted by NGOs to the Working Group concerning obstacles allegedly encountered in the implementation of the Declaration by the Government of Peru. This information was transmitted to the Government. 284. In a communication dated 21 December 2006, the Government of Peru responded to the Working Group’s general allegation described in the 2006 report (A/HRC/4/41). 285. The Government stated: “Since the current Minister of Defence was appointed in July 2006, he has ordered the armed forces to provide as much assistance and information as possible to judges and prosecutors in order to clarify any acts in which its personnel may have been involved, and this order is being complied with fully. “Despite these efforts, it has been impossible in some cases to provide the information requested, because there is no record of the circumstances surrounding the acts in question. “The use of pseudonyms by armed forces personnel who served in counter-subversion bases is one reason for this. The armed forces have no records of these pseudonyms, as these were a protection mechanism used by all personnel over short periods while undertaking missions. Furthermore, it has been found that the same pseudonym has been used by more than one person. In the case of personnel who served in