9 ii. iii. f) Mr. Cantoral expected a concrete answer about the fellowship in Peru. However, when he received no answer from the State, he returned to Brazil to study, and They requested that the State reimburse the money that the victim had spent thus far, in the amount of US$590.70 per month since January 2004, in order to cover his educational and living expenses in Brazil, and that by mutual agreement with Mr. Cantoral, the State settle on a sum that it must pay him each month, until he completes his studies. Concerning the obligation to investigate, identify and punish the responsible parties, i. ii. iii. iv. The State is attempting to evade its obligation to investigate and punish the responsible parties by invoking rules and provisions of its own domestic laws; The argument the Peruvian State makes claiming that the specific crime of torture did not exist in its legal system is without merit, since the criminal prosecution of that crime was the State’s duty under conventional and customary international law; The State’s argument that the crimes committed at the time of the events were now statute-barred, constitutes “a new challenge to the Court,” which has already held that provisions that attempt to thwart the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations are, under its case law, inadmissible. This also constitutes noncompliance with the Court’s Order of November 27, 2003 (supra Having Seen 5). The State has not complied with the obligation to pursue the measures taken by the Public Ministry; instead, it persists in putting up arguments that the Court has already discredited and rejected; therefore, the State is not in compliance with this point, and Concerning the statement of interpretation that the Peruvian State filed when it acceded to the Convention on the NonApplicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity to the effect that the Convention would only apply to crimes committed subsequent to the date on which the Convention entered into force for Peru, the representatives contend that the statement has no force in law and cannot be used to avoid judicial prosecution and punishment of the torture committed against Mr. Cantoral or any other investigation into other “grave crimes” committed during the internal armed conflict. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Oversight for compliance with its decisions is an authority inherent in the Court’s jurisdictional functions. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and recognized the Court’s binding jurisdiction on January 21, 1981.