3 was requested to inform the Court on the measures it had taken to fulfill the Judgment on reparations in the instant case. 8. The March 30, 2001 report from the State mentioning the “the force and enforceability of Judgments […] delivered by the Court” in the instant case and the State’s willingness to fulfill said rulings. It also indicated that the State’s representatives had met with the next of kin of the victim in order to fully comply with the Judgment. In relation to damage, it reported about “internal action before the Ministry of Finance to allocate funds”; in relation to investigation and punishment of those responsible for the facts, it stated that a process had begun at the Court and that the representatives of the victim’s next of kin and the State’s representative had “formally met with the judge […] whom [was] informed on the position of the State of Peru to the effect of fully complying with the Judgments delivered by the Court.” Finally, it mentioned the existence of amnesty laws and a Judgment of the Constitutional Court “that could hinder the compliance with Judgment on reparations.” It pointed out, nevertheless, that “this circumstance, as well as the Judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court on March 14, 2001 in the Barrios Altos case” must be timely evaluated. 9. The report of the State on the compliance with judgment on reparations, submitted on May 7, 2001, reporting that “it ha[d] paid in full [on April 26, 2001] the amount for reparations established […], plus all legal interests due,” at the exchange rate in force at the time of the payment “no tax or fee has been levied on the amounts paid to the next of kin of the victim.” Also, it stated that all needed action was being taken, in coordination with the representatives of the next of kin, to “drive the criminal process […] in order to investigate the facts and punish the responsible parties for the arrest-disappearance of [Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez].” 10. The June 1, 2001 Order of the Court on Compliance with Judgment on the cases Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein and that of the Constitutional Court in which it ruled: 1. Notice fulfillment by the State of Peru of the Judgments on Competence delivered in the Cases of the Constitutional Court and that of Ivcher Bronstein on September 24, 1999, as well as progress made to the issuance date of [the] Order on compliance with Judgments delivered by the Court in the cases Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein and that of the Constitutional Court. […] 11. The December 4, 2001 briefs from the Secretariat in which, following directions from the full Court, it requested the parties to provide information on the compliance with Judgment on reparations. 12. The January 7, 2002 brief from the representatives of the next of kin, in which they submitted their observations, pointing out that the State had paid in full the amount for damages plus interests due, and indicating that they “consider[ed] that [the] point of the Judgment [dealing with pecuniary damage] ha[d] been satisfactorily fulfilled.” They also stated that, in relation to the investigation of the facts and the identification and punishment of those responsible for them, “[o]n August 29, 2001 […] [the] criminal accusation [was] formalized [against] fifteen members of the Peruvian National Police for abduction “since, at the time of the facts (October 1990) forced disappearance was not a statutory offence in Peruvian criminal legislation.” To this effect, they added that this point had not been fulfilled

Select target paragraph3