B. Obligation of investigation of the facts surrounding this case and punishment of the perpetrators (Operative paragraph No. 5 of the Judgment on reparations) 12. The State provided information in regard to the criminal proceeding against Raúl Aurelio Talledo Valdivieso in the case of Cesti Hurtado and the judgment ordered by the Permanent Criminal Chamber on June 13, 2003, wherein he was convicted of abuse of authority, as the perpetrator, and he was sentenced to deprivation of liberty for four years with rules of conduct. Moreover, the State reported that on January 30, 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic resolved the appeals filed by both the Civil Party as well as the Public Prosecutor’s Office and confirmed the judgment of June 13, 2003. Moreover, on January 12, 2005, it rendered a second Supreme Final Judgment. Subsequently, on May 9, 2005, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the judgment of June 13, 2003, be declared null and void. On July 13, 2005, the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice “rendered a decision in regard to the Public Prosecutor’s complaint, declaring that it agreed with the judgment [on appeal].” Lastly, the State noted that the sentence is currently being carried out, and the case is with the Supreme Chamber, given the proceeding against Guido Eduardo Guevara Guerra until he is suited for trial, “as a convicted criminal in contempt.” 13. The victims noted that repeatedly providing the judgment convicting Raúl Aurelio Talledo Valdivieso, as the State has done, is insufficient given that he is not the only one responsible for the facts. Moreover, they highlighted that the State has not taken any measures to “extradite General Guevara Guerra, who is in Mexico.” In addition to the aforementioned, they added that responsibility for these facts cannot be attributed only to these two persons, and they considered it necessary that an investigation be carried out against the Officers charged with the custody of Cesti Hurtado in Barracks “San Martin,” being that they “deprived him of liberty despite a Judge ruling otherwise.” The investigation should also be carried out against two former Anti-corruption attorneys who litigated against Cesti Hurtado, “and then, being attorneys, refused to investigate the facts.” Moreover, the victims considered that the “[Former President] Alberto Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinos, the General of the Army Nicolás Hermosa Ríos, and the Division General Guido Guevara Guerra, devised [the] kidnapping [of the víctim], using Police and Army weaponry.” According to the victims, the judgment of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of June 13, 2003, dealt with the noncompliance of the habeas corpus remedy ordered in favor of Cesti Hurtado, which “has nothing to do with the subsequent aggravated kidnapping he underwent.” In this sense, they argued that “the perpetrators who ordered the kidnapping and deprivation of liberty of [Cesti Hurtado] must still be denounced.” 14. The Commission considered that the resolution issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is an important advance in regard to compliance with this obligation. Notwithstanding the abovementioned and taking into account the observations of the victims regarding the existence of other possible perpetrators and the involvement of more than one person in the decisions that led to the international responsibility of the State, it considered it necessary that the Court order the State to accurately report on the reasons why it considers that this measure has been fulfilled, and specifically, that it note whether it has exhausted all means of investigation in regard to the different levels of responsibility that may exist in this case. In addition, it noted that in the last Order on compliance issued in this case on February 4, 2010, the Court had already taken into account the information presented by the State and required the submission of new information, however, the State “did not report on any procedures it had taken subsequent to the appeals and complaint that were filed against the decision of June 13, 2003.” proceedings. Thus, it concluded that it does not have information 5