that would demonstrate that the State has exhausted all means of investigation in regard to the different levels of responsibility that may be in this case. 15. During the proceeding on monitoring of compliance of the judgments on the merits and reparations, during the period 2003-2013, that is, during the last ten years, the State has repeatedly provided details of the criminal proceedings in the case of Cesti Hurtado and the judgment of June 13, 2003, wherein the Permanent Criminal Chamber convicted Raul Aurelio Talledo Valdivieso, Magistrate of the Military Forum, for the crime of abuse of authority. 8 Moreover, in that case, the Permanent Criminal Chamber put aside the judgment of Guido Eduardo Guevara Guerra, Chief of Military Justice at the time of the facts of this case, wherein it needed to carry out the corresponding national and international arrest warrants. Moreover, the State reported that by way of an appeal of January 30, 2004, the conviction of Raúl Aurelio Talledo Valdivieso was confirmed. 9 Subsequently, Peru submitted information in regard to the Supreme Final Judgment and the Appeal of January 12, and July 13, 2005 (supra para. 12) , which did not specifically mention the case of Cesti Hurtado. In turn, by way of the Order of February 4, 2010, the Court “positively assesse[d] the willingness expressed by the State to comply with its obligation to investigate the facts in this case and punish those responsible.” 10 Because of the information submitted by the State and its supporting documentation, the Court finds that the State has partially complied with its obligation to investigate the facts of this case, and where appropriate, punish those responsible. 16. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court notes that after the judgment of June 13, 2003, and the appeal of January 30, 2004, the information submitted by the State does not demonstrate that procedures have been implemented to fulfill this aspect of the measures of reparations. Meanwhile, the victims have referred to the failure to extradite one of the suspects, the alleged responsibility of more than two people in this case, and the failure to establish claims against “those responsible for ordering the kidnapping and deprivation of liberty” of Cesti Hurtado. 17. In this regard, it is important to remember that, in the judgment on merits, the Court declared the international responsibility of the State: (i) “[f]or failure to appropriately implement the decision of the Special Public Law Chamber in favor of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado [which upheld the habeas corpus remedy that was filed];” ( ii ) “[a]s a result of the refusal of [the] military authorities to obey and execute the legal order of the Special Public Law Chamber, and the consequent arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Mr. Cesti Hurtado,” and (iii) “[i]n regard to the proceedings against Mr. Cesti Hurtado before a military justice 8 In accordance with the judgment of June 13, 2003, Raul Aurelio Talledo Valdivieso, in his capacity as Magistrate of the Military Forum wrongly prosecuted, under the military forum, the retired Captain of the Peruvian Army, Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, for the crime of fraud and others, and consequently, ordered the Judicial Police to detain him and the search his home on February 28, 1997, and on February 26, 1997, declared the habeas corpus remedy against Cesti Hurtado inapplicable, “thereby abusing his powers as a Military Judge.” 9 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Having Seen clause 17; Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Having Seen clauses 6(b), 7(b) and 12(b), and Considering clause 11; Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 4, 2008, Considering claues 14 to 16 and 19; and Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering clauses 12 to 14. 10 Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering clause 15. 6