4 […] that the State [was to] order an investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [the] judgment, and punish them. 9. That in the judgment on reparations of December 3, 2001, the Court decided [the following in operative paragraph nine]: […] that the State [was] to investigate the facts of the present case, and identify and punish the responsible parties. 10. That, after examining the documentation submitted by the parties, the Court ha[d] verified that, to date, those responsible for the violations of the human rights of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides ha[d] not been identified. In this respect, the victim’s representatives advised that the office of the 3rd Criminal Provincial Prosecutor of Lima had declared the criminal proceedings statute-barred and the definitive filing of the complaint lodged against those allegedly responsible for the violations of the victim’s human rights [...]. […] 12. Based on the above, the Court consider[ed] that the State [could] not invoke the statute of limitations in its domestic law to fail to comply with the obligation established in the 12th and 9th operative paragraphs of the judgments of August 18, 2000, and December 3, 2001, respectively. Moreover, the State [was to] provide information on the different measures taken by the Office of the Attorney General or by the pertinent authorities in this respect. 13. That the Court [would] consider the general status of compliance with the judgments on merits (supra eighth considering paragraph) and on reparations (supra ninth considering paragraph) when it ha[d] received the State’s report and the respective comments of the parties. In that order, the Court resolved the following: 1. To urge the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply promptly and effectively with the judgments on merits and reparations of August 18, 2000 and December 3, 2001, respectively, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Cantoral-Benavides, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To call upon the State to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by April 1, 2004, a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the decisions of the Court in the judgment on reparations of [December 3, 2001], as stipulated in the seventh and twelfth considering paragraphs of [the] Order on compliance.. 3. To call upon the representatives of the victim and [his] next of kin and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit their comments on the State’s report mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within two months of receiving it. […] 6. The communication from Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, dated February 20, 2004, wherein he reported that the State: a) b) c) d) e) had paid the amounts owed for pecuniary and non pecuniary damages 12 months late, which meant that he was owed interest for delinquency, which had not been paid; had not given him the grant for studies, as a result of which he [was] having to defray, out of pocket, the costs of the studies he [was] pursuing; had not published the operative paragraphs of the judgment on the merits in a newspaper with nationwide circulation; had shown no interest in punishing those responsible for the events that occurred, and had not nullified any court, administrative, criminal or police proceedings.