8 three years of prison and the payment of a civil reparation of US$4,073,407 in the process that followed for “having […] received money from Vladimiro Montesinos for making an increase of capital in [the business], reducing [the] participation [of Mr. Ivcher] and deliver[ing] the control of the editorial line to the Peruvian State.” Regarding this in particular, Mr. Ivcher provided that it is “absolutely suspicious that the Ad-Hoc Government Attorney’s Office endorsed […] an agreement in that only the devolution of money […] obtained [by] Winter of […] Vladimiro Montesinos was accepted, without any type of additional compensation to the favor of the Peruvian State, and that in the execution of this agreement, the Ad-Hoc Government Attorney’s Office had only accepted the payment of US$120,000 on the part of each one of the [brothers] Winter Zuzunaga, when the total of the reparation is more than US$4 million dollars.” Therefore, Mr. Ivcher concluded that it was necessary that the State inform about the terms of this agreement. 10. That the Commission concluded that “there are no […] definitive results in the process of fulfillment of [this] holding of the Sentence” and that “the delay in the processing of the trials generates the justified fear to fulfill the time frames in order to declare the statute of limitations of the same.” Concretely, the Commission lamented the declaration of the statute of limitations in one of the processes “[because] this Tribunal issued an express order to carry forth this investigation; and […] because this statute of limitations had operated after eight years that the State had knowledge of the order given by this Court. Therefore, [that] the State delayed the process of administration of justice […] until [its] total uselessness.” Without prejudice, the Commission indicated that “the hope remain[ed] for information regarding concrete results in the criminal processes that were carried forth in the internal scope.” 11. That at the same time, the Commission made note that the State “did not inform if the persons that welcomed the law of efficient collaboration had paid the civil reparation, or questioned Mr. Ivcher.” Therefore, the Commission urged the Court to request from the Peruvian State “detailed information both in relation to the irregularities pointed out respecting the agreement of efficient collaboration between the State and the [brothers] Winter Zuzuana, […] and of the concrete acts that had been developed in relation [to the fulfillment of this obligation.] 12. That this Court deems it necessary to reiterate what it has consistently stated in its past decisions about the fact that, pursuant to the obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to prevent and fight impunity, which has been defined by the Court as “the overall failure to investigate, search, arrest, prosecute and convict those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American 8 Convention. In this regard, the Court has held that the State “has the obligation to combat this situation by all legal means available, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims and their next of kin completely defenseless.”9 8 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paragraph 173; Bamaca Velazquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, considering twenty-fourth, and Tiu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, paragraph 69. 9 Cf. Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paragraph 299; Bamaca Velasquez case, supra note 8, considering twenty-fourth, and Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, paragraph 81.