7 * * * 21. That regarding subparagraph (c) of the fourth operative paragraph (supra first having seen paragraph), in relation to the obligation to investigate, the State reported that, by a resolution of September 19, 2002, an investigation had been initiated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances [and] Clandestine Graves (hereinafter “Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances”), against military and police agents and those found responsible in this case. In addition, a multidisciplinary team had been established to study the remains of the detainees who died in the former San Juan Bautista Prison. In this regard, the State indicated that it had “complied by doing everything possible to encompass all the masterminds and perpetrators, a criminal complaint having been filed [on April 5, 2002,] by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances against some of the perpetrators, and the proceedings were being heard by the First Supra-provincial Court of Lima, while a complaint relating to a point of law [queja de derecho] filed by the State and the next of kin was pending a decision […].” 22. That, regarding the investigation into the facts, the representatives indicated that, to date, the military courts had not forwarded the complete judicial case file to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, which had repeatedly asked the Supreme Council of Military Justice for the file corresponding to the events of June 18 and 19, 1986. They also referred to various measures taken in the domestic sphere. Among these, they indicated that, on November 30, 2004, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances had “filed a criminal complaint against ten members of the Peruvian Navy” before the sitting Supra-provincial Criminal Court for the events that had occurred on June 18 and 19, 1986. In the same decision, that Office ordered “the definitive filing of the investigations in favor of those who, at the time of the facts, occupied either a position of authority or senior commands in the Peruvian navy.” They also indicated that an application for habeas corpus had been filed by one of the men criminally accused by the Special Prosecutor’s Office, and this had been decided by the Third Criminal Chamber for the accused who are at liberty (Reos Libres) on May 10, 2007, “in final and definitive instance, adduc[ing] that it had not observed any actions by the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) or the Judiciary that would have interrupted the time period before the statute of limitations came into force, and that the exceptional period was not applicable; consequently it referred to a period of 20 years,” as established by Peruvian law. The representatives also advised that, since the Third Criminal Chamber was unable to decide unanimously, as required by article 141 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, an additional member had to make a ruling in this regard. Hence, the representatives considered that, based on the Criminal Chamber’s decision and the ruling of the provisional member, Malson Urbina La Torre, declaring the criminal action filed by the complainant on March 12, 2007, to be time-barred, the State had failed to comply with the Court’s judgment. 23. That, regarding the obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible, the Inter-American Commission indicated, inter alia, that the State had adopted various measures to conduct investigations to prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible. Despite those efforts, the Commission also noted that the investigations needed to be conducted with sufficient promptness, objectivity and impartiality to guarantee the timely adoption of the appropriate judicial decisions, in order to avoid the facts going unpunished. The Commission drew attention to the fact that a prosecutor is conducting an investigation into the military and police agents and