4 State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the whole status of compliance in this case. * * * 8. That as to the obligation to adopt all measures to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish all the physical perpetrators and instigators of the violations committed against Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García, the State informed that such obligation “is pending compliance”. 9. That, regarding this aspect, the representatives pointed out that “in spite of the beginning of the criminal procedure and the identification of the alleged responsible for the human rights violations committed against Bernabé Baldeón-García, two years have passed since the criminal procedure began and the accused had not been detained yet, which represents a serious hindrance to comply with the State's obligation to prosecute and punish the responsible according to the Judgment delivered by the Court in the instant case". 10. That, in such regard, the Commission emphasized that “the State is required to provide useful information on the compliance with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish the responsible [and that] relevant information shall be such that reflects specific and effective results pursuant to the obligation established by the Tribunal [...]". 11. That this Tribunal notes that in the Judgment, the Court consider proven the following facts: a) that Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García was arrested by military officers without a warrant issued by a competent judge and not in flagrante delicto;6 b) that during his arrest, he was beaten, tied up with a wire and hung upside down from a beam and then submerged in a tank of cold water;7 c) that he died in the early morning of September 26, 1990 in Pacchahuallua while in military custody,8 and d) up to the date of this judgment, only two persons have been indicted and none has been punished for the events giving rise to this case9. 12. That the information presented by the representatives suggests that no significant progress has been made in the investigations into said facts since the delivery of the judgment, inasmuch as the only two accused people have not been detained yet.10 The foregoing means that after 18 years of the occurrence of such events, the violations so declared in the case at hand are still in the same condition of impunity that they were at the moment of the delivery of the Judgment, three years ago.11 6 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006; Series C No. 147, para. 58, 72(17) and 122. 7 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra nota 6, párr. 72(20) and 123. 8 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra nota 6, para. 72(21) 9 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra nota 6, para. 72(37) 10 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra nota 6, para. 72(36) 11 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 165 and 195.