5 17. The November 29, 2002 report of the State, in which it reiterated “ha[ving] complied with the payment for monetary reparations” awarded by the Court. Also, it reported that an investigation was being carried out by the Public Prosecutors Office. 18. The December 3, 2002 report of the State, in which it pointed out that “the criminal process initiated against the presumed responsible of the arrestdisappearance of Ernesto Castillo Páez [was] following the course stated in Peruvian law.” In line with this, several witnesses had deposed and the first examination of the accused had taken place. Also, the State reported that, at the date of the report, “the investigative stage of the criminal proceedings ha[d] ended” and was “awaiting the Prosecutor’s Opinion,” which had not been given due to a strike at the Judiciary Branch of the Government. 19. The March 25, 2003 brief of the next of kin of the victim, in which they stated no defendant had been arrested as of that date, and that many of them continued to serve at the Police; that the trial against the presumed responsible was being “handed from one judge to another,” and that, after over twelve years from the disappearance of the victim and four years after the Inter-American Court delivered a Judgment declaring the responsibility of the State in the instant case, those responsible for the crime had not been identified and arrested, and no sentence had been passed on them, and that the mortal remains of the victim continued to be unlocated. 20. The April 9, 2003 report of the State, pointing out the existence of “various factors beyond State control [that] have resulted in a tremendous increase in the procedural load of the different bodies of the Judiciary.” For this reason, the Judiciary is undergoing a reform process and reiterated the terms of its December 3, 2003 report (supra Having Seen 18) in relation to the progress made by the State in terms of the obligation to investigate the facts, identify, and punish those responsible, established on the Judgment on reparations. 21. The June 19, 2003 brief of the representatives of the next of kin, in which they confirmed that “the measures mentioned by the representative of the State in his report, have effectively been taken.” They considered, however, that “the State […] (the Judiciary) ha[d] not given this process the attention it deserve [d],” as the process has been conducted by three different judges in the investigative stage for eighteen months; that the facts had not been interpreted as establishing the crime of forced disappearance since, at the time the facts took place, forced disappearance was not a statutory offence in Peruvian criminal legislation, in spite of this being a crime against humanity, which has resulted in a different focus on the investigation in the instant case and in allowing the indictees to remain at large, since “both the indictees and the members of the top management of the Peruvian Police, as well as the representatives of the Executive Branch of the State and the officers of the Home Office , had taken various actions aimed at hindering and distorting the proceedings.” Also, they reported that a reconstruction of the crime was not ordered in the brief to start the investigative stage, but rather was made upon request of the Castillo Páez family, and that the Prosecutor had issued a final and an extended opinion, and the judge had issued the Final Report; and that in all three documents the perpetration of abduction to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez was established. However, they differed in terms of the number of suspects in relation to what occurred to the victim.