5 the National Criminal Court and the Public Ministry for their respective pronouncement.” Despite the fact that Peru” has not complied with its obligation to submit information,” they indicated that “the State is complying with this obligation. However, […] monitoring should continue as the criminal proceedings for these acts have not yet concluded, and the final decision on the request for the prescription period application made by one of the accused is still pending.” Subsequently, the representative stated that, through a media report, they learned that in the criminal proceeding “the 35th Criminal Court of Lima accepted the request for a writ of [habeas corpus] filed [by one of the defendants] against the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office” and nullified the criminal proceedings. This judgment “has not considered the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court —the Court that began the proceedings against [the accused]— as a defendant; moreover, it has extended its effect to persons who had not filed the [habeas corpus] request.” Finally, they stated that this resolution was reversed on an appeal filed by the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office. They affirmed that, in any case, "they have not received any response [to the] brief whereby [they] requested to intervene as third part[ies]" in the proceeding. Finally, they requested that the State submit information on the main procedural steps taken during the judicial investigation stage of the present case. 10. The Commission observed with concern “that the State had not presented information with regard to this reparation measure” and recalled that the scope of this measure implies that: i) the State has a duty to investigate and sanction all those responsible; ii) that it must remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that impede proper investigation of the facts, and iii) that it must not adopt any domestic law measures to make itself exempt from this obligation. 11. It is evident from the Judgment that the State should have immediately investigated the acts that caused the violations it identified therein, and identified, prosecuted, and, if applicable, punished those responsible. Furthermore, Peru was to report on the measures adopted within one year of notification of the Judgment, a term which concluded on August 3, 2008. Given the lack of information, the Tribunal, by way of the Order of September 21, 2009, again requested that the State report on the measures adopted to comply with the Judgment, and that it submit the relevant information by January 29, 2010. However, the State has still not submitted information on the measures taken to effectively comply with this obligation. 12. The Court notes that the State is not complying with its obligation to report on progress made regarding compliance with obligations set forth in the Judgment and considers it critical that Peru provide updated, complete and detailed information on the measures undertaken and the advances made with the corresponding process. Therefore, it orders the State to forward this information, along with copies of the main proceedings, including all the relevant information on the habeas corpus proceeding, which the representatives reported on. b) Obligation to grant scholarships 13. Regarding the obligation to grant scholarships to Ulises Cantoral Huamaní, Pelagia Mélida Contreras Montoya de Cantoral and the children of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní (operative paragraph two of the Judgment), the State only reported that on May 8, 2009, the Supranational State Prosecutor's Office requested the Dean of Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos to grant a scholarship to Brenda