7 taking steps to annul the judgments delivered by the secret courts [but] neither the victim nor his representatives [have] been notified of the judicial decision ordering the annulment of the conviction and the consequent filing of the legal proceedings against Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides.” They reiterated that the resolution of the National Chamber on Terrorism, Criminal Organizations and Bands of March 27, 2002, decided to suspend the arrest warrants and to annul the victim’s police, criminal and judicial records, so that “[in practice,] this resolution would comply with the corresponding operative paragraph.” They also reiterated that the Peruvian State had not complied with the award of a grant for university studies under the conditions proposed by Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides and had not suggested an alternative; that the State had complied with the publication of the operative paragraphs of the judgment of August 18, 2000, in the official gazette, on February 3, 2002, but not with their publication in another national newspaper; and that the State had complied with conducting a public act of redress, acknowledging its responsibility in this case. The victim’s representatives also expressed their concern about the length of the investigation being conducted by the Office of the Attorney General without any concrete results being reached, thereby allowing those responsible for the human rights violations against Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides to continue unpunished and “carry out acts of intimidation against the victim.” Lastly, they expressed their concern about the Peruvian State’s negligence in complying with the measures of reparation ordered by the Court in its judgment and requested the Court to order the State: “1) To publish the judgment on merits delivered by the Court in the instant case in a national newspaper. 2) To award Luis Alberto Cantoral the grant for his studies, under the conditions previously agreed with him. 3) To proceed to annul or provide information on the annulment of the verdict convicting Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides. 4) To foster a genuine and decided investigation to identify and punish those responsible for the facts that had occurred to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides.” 22. The note of the victim of August 22, 2003, in which he advised that the State had not awarded the study grant ordered by the Court, so that he had had to postpone his university studies. Consequently, the victim requested the Court to adopt “stronger measures” and suggested “that all the expenses arising from the studies as well as maintenance and the expenses occasioned by these studies should be evaluated (by my lawyers and by the Court) in order to put a monetary value on them,” because he considered that this was the “only way in which the Government will truly comply fully with this point.” 23. The note of the victim’s representatives of November 18, 2003, advising that, on November 7, 2003, the Office of the 3rd Criminal Provincial Prosecutor of Lima had declared that “the investigation against those allegedly responsible for the violations of the human rights of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides committed by agents of the Peruvian State had been filed definitively.” 24. The note of the victim’s representatives of November 25, 2003, advising that on November 20, 2003, they had filed a remedy of complaint against the decision issued on November 7, 2003, by the Office of the 3rd Criminal Provincial Prosecutor of Lima, which declared that “the investigation against those allegedly responsible for the violations of the human rights of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides committed by agents of the Peruvian State had been filed definitively,” and submitted a copy of page nine of the November 25 edition of the newspaper “PERU 21” in which the decision of the Prosecutor to reject the objection filed by the representatives was reported.