5 surrounding this case reinforces the systematic policy of aggression against the rights of the Peruvian pensioners, which is reflected in the important number of cases that are currently being heard [before the Inter-American system of human rights]”. 10. That, during the private hearing held, the Commission mentioned that “th[ose] investigations are for failing to abide by the judicial decisions that were not complied with. The investigations should not necessarily be focused on criminal matters, but disciplinary or administrative or on other type, and [that it heard,] for the first time […] the filing or closing of the investigations referred to by the State, since during the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgment, it [had] not have information on that aspect". Moreover, in its observations of June 16, 2009 it expressed that "it notes with concern that from the information furnished by the State, it spring that the State has not investigated nor punished the responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions issued by the Peruvian tribunals. Even more, while the State has informed on the filing of the criminal complaints filed at the request of the interested parties, it has not informed on the measures adopted, on its own initiative, to comply with this order of the Court”. Therefore, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to comply with said operative paragraph and to present updated information in that respect. 11. That, in the Judgment delivered in this case, the Tribunal considered that: [T]he claim that an impartial and effective investigation should be conducted into the prolonged failure to comply with the judicial rulings is admissible, so that the Court orders the State to conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent 10 punishments to those responsible for disregarding the judicial rulings . 12. That, upon the analysis of the information furnished by the parties, this Tribunal has verified that the complaints filed by the victims of the instant case, prior to the delivery of the Judgment of the Court, gave rise to the criminal proceeding to which the State has referred (supra Considering clause 8). Those complaints are, namely: a) b) 10 On July 19, 1995, Mr. Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Guillermo Alvarez Hernandez and Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidrobo, victims in the instant case, filed, among others, a criminal complaint against Mr. Luis Cortavarria Checkley and Claudio Sarmiento Molina for the “crimes of abuse of authority, non-performance of duties, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, conversion and undue delay in the payment”, arguing as factual grounds: “the undue appropriation of the resources of the Pensions Fund of the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance and the [withholding of said resources] despite they had the legal obligation to transfer them to the Ministry of Economy and Finance as of the end of October 1992”. Moreover, they alleged that there was an unjustified delay in the payment decreed by the competent authority11; On March 12, 1997, Mr. Guillermo Álvarez Hernández filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Manuel Vásquez Perales and Juan Alberto Aching Case of the Five Pensioners V. Peru, supra note 1, para. 179. 11 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the on-duty Provincial Prosecutor’s Office on July 19, 1995 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, pages 1059 to 1071).