-2case closed when the State has complied fully with its provisions. Within one year from notification of the judgment, the State must provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to comply with [the] judgment, as stated in paragraph 186 above. 2. The Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, in which, considering that on March 12, 2004, the one year period established in the judgment for the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) to submit a report on compliance with the obligations established in the said judgment had expired and, on three occasions, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), on the instructions of the President and all the members of the Court, had requested the State to submit the report on compliance with the judgment, and the State had not forwarded any information in this regard, it decided: 1. To request the State to submit a report on compliance with the judgment on merits, reparations and costs of February 28, 2003, by January 31, 2005, at the latest. 2. To request the representatives of the victims and their next of kin and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit their observations on the report of the State mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within four and six weeks, respectively, of receiving it. 3. To continue monitoring compliance with the judgment on merits, reparations and costs of February 28, 2003. […] 3. The Order of the Court of September 12, 2005, in which it requested the State to submit, by November 30, 2005, at the latest, a report indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court that were pending, pursuant to the terms of the eighth and thirteenth considering paragraphs and the declarative paragraph of the Order. The Court declared that the State had not complied with any of the reparations ordered in the judgment of February 28, 2003, and therefore decided to continue monitoring compliance with the aspects pending fulfillment in this case. In addition, in the ninth and thirteenth considering paragraphs, the Court decided as follows: 9. That, regarding the obligation to “conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions delivered by the Peruvian courts during the applications for protective measures filed by the victims,” the Court considers that the State should forward information that allows it to determine whether any investigation has been initiated and, if so, the status of this investigation, as well as referring to the matter mentioned by the representatives, that the victims had requested the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Fiscalía de la Nación) to open an investigation, but this had been rejected […]. […] 13. That the Court considers that the State should present detailed information on the alleged reductions in the pensions of the four victims and of the widow of Mr. Gamarra Ferreyra that occurred as of June 2005, and on the administrative-law proceedings alluded to […;] its report should also refer to compliance with the terms of the judgment of February 28, 2003, and to the victims’ enjoyment of their rights, in accordance with its terms. 4. The brief of January 17, 2006, in which the representatives of the victims and their next of kin asked the Court whether the State “had complied with the […] Court’s order” to submit its report on compliance with judgment. In this regard, on January 25, 2006, the Secretariat informed the representatives and the InterAmerican Commission that the State had not submitted the said report.