4 * * * 8. That, in relation to the State’s 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” (operative paragraph six of the Judgment of February 28, 2003), the State informed inter alia, at the private hearing, that: a) “after the delivery of the Judgment and by virtue of it, Mr. Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidobro filed a complaint8 against three superintendents of Banks and Insurance for alleged offenses related to the non-compliance with the protective measures”; b) “the Solicitor General, after the preliminary investigation, ordered9 that it was not acceptable to initiate an investigation against the former officers who were denounced, inasmuch as there was a proceeding opened in which the same facts were in dispute […]. Therefore, the public prosecutor’s office decided not to accept the opening of an investigation and set aside the complaint of Mr. Mujica”, and c) The judicial proceeding in process was conducted before "the 30° Criminal Trial Court of Lima, in which it was investigated the officers of the Superintendency in relation to the complaints for the reductions of the victims' pensions. However, this investigation concluded with the ruling of a court to the effect that there was no criminal responsibility on the part of the officers so denounced. This decision of the trial court was upheld by the Superior Court, [in] second instance […]. [In light of that situation], Mr. Mujica filed a motion to annul against such decision of the Superior Court, which was declared to be inadmissible. According to the Peruvian legislation against such decision, a complaint appeal should be filed due to the inadmissibility of the motion to annul. Remedy that was also denied; therefore, the proceeding concluded”. 9. That at the private hearing and in the brief containing the observations to the State's reports (supra Having Seen clauses 5, 8, 10 and 11), the victims' representative indicated that "the judgment of the Court orders not only the opening of an investigation but also the application of the pertinent punishments to the responsible of these violations. [Such is] an affirmation […] clear and precise […] that has been interpreted […] by the State as a simply obligations of means and not of results. And these pensioners, as has been said, [l]ike others, filed criminal remedies to try and obtain some guarantees of non-repetition, […] which were absolutely ineffective and were permanently rejected, ensuring that the responsible for these violations go unpunished". Furthermore, it indicated that “the impunity 8 Cf. complaint filed by Mr. Javier Mujica Petit, acting on behalf of Mr. Javier Mujica Ruíz- Huidrobo, before the Solicitor General’s Office on April 7, 2003 (record on monitoring compliance with the judgment, volume IV; pages 1046 to 1054) and complaint filed by Mr. Javier Mujica Petit, acting on behalf of Mr. Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidrobo before the on-duty Provincial Public Prosecutor’s Office on Criminal Matters of Lima on February 21, 1999 (record on monitoring compliance with the judgment, volume IV, pages 1113 to 1117). 9 Cf. ordered issued by the Solicitor General, Office of the Public Prosecutor of Peru, on April 6, 2004 (record of monitoring compliance with the Judgment, volume IV, pages 1055 to 1057).