5 damages to be established through arbitration was pending, as arbitration is an optional rather than a mandatory procedure. The State also pointed out that it began proceedings against Guido Guevara and Raúl Talledo Valdivieso for abuse of authority and failure to denounce a crime in connection with disregard for the order of the Judiciary to release Mr. Cesti Hurtado. 12. The February 26, 2003 communication by the Secretariat, in which, under instructions by the full Court, it informed the Commission that its request for the Court to appoint experts to determine compensation was rejected because it was out of order (supra Having Seen 8), since “both the judgment on reparations and the ruling on the request for interpretation of the former established the appropriate mechanism for Mr. Cesti to file his claims in accordance with domestic Law.” The Secretariat also asked the parties to provide information on compliance with operative paragraph two of the May 31, 2001 judgment of the Court (supra Having Seen 3). 13. The April 14, 2003 brief by the State, in which it reported that it had paid US$ 65,000.00 (sixty-five thousand United States dollars) ordered as compensation in the judgment on reparations, and that this payment was made at the seat of the Ministry of Justice of Peru on April 2, 2003. 14. The May 28, 2003 brief in which the Commission reported that, according to the information provided by the representative of the victim, the State had complied with operative paragraph two of the judgment on reparations, regarding payment of US$ 25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) as compensation for moral damages. 15. The June 17, 2003 brief by the representatives of the victim, in which they pointed out that the State had not fully complied with the judgments of September 29, 1999 and May 31, 2001 (supra Having Seen 1 and 3). They specifically mentioned that regarding identification and punishment of those responsible, “there ha[d] been no change with respect to what they pointed out in [their] March 9, 2002 report, as they [had] received no communication from the Peruvian State regarding progress in the judicial proceedings against some of the former members of the Supreme Council of Military Justice for their actions in the Cesti Hurtado case, among others. [They added that] the fact that Mr. Cesti Hurtado ha[d] been called as a witness rather than being considered an injured party in the proceedings ha[d] not changed.” With respect to payment of the compensation ordered for moral damages, they pointed out that the State delayed payment twenty months beyond the deadline set by the Court, for which reason they argued that the State should have paid interest on those arrearages, and it did not do so when it made the payment. They also reported that an Arbitration Agreement was yet to be signed, and that arbitrators had not been appointed for the arbitration proceeding to begin. Finally, they stated that a second criminal proceeding had continued against Mr. Cesti Hurtado and that a third complaint regarding the same facts heard in the military trial was in the investigative phase. 16. The October 13, 2003 brief in which the Secretariat, under instructions by the President of the Court, asked the State to submit detailed information on the status of compliance with the judgment in the instant case, especially with respect to progress of the investigation, “renewal of criminal prosecution against Mr. Cesti Hurtado,” and payment of interest on arrearages, which according to the