6 * * 23. That in the Order of September 22, 2005, the Court requested the State to submit updated information on the “duty to investigate the facts of the instant case so as to ascertain those responsible for the violations of human rights referred to in the Judgment on the merits, as well as to publicly release the result of said investigation and the punishment of the responsible parties" (operative paragraph five of the Judgment on the merits of March 14, 2001.) 24. That in its brief of January 11, 2008, the State made reference to procedural acts dating from year 2005. 25. That the representatives pointed out -in their comments of February 29, 2008-, that “the case of Barrios Altos [was] still in the Oral Proceedings stage before the Primera Sala Penal Especial (First Special Criminal Chamber), Case File No. 282001 [and that] the witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor [were] being examined, as well as other parties to the process.” The representatives argued that "case file No. 19-2001-AV is under proceedings before the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru, where former president Alberto Fujimori is indicted for the facts of Barrios Altos”. They further stated that “before the extradition judgment of October 29, 2007, the Supreme Prosecutor in charge of the case shaped his charges requesting imprisonment for 30 years and the payment of 100 millions nuevos soles by way of civil reparation for the benefit of those injured by the cases of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta [and that] the beginning of the hearings of the oral proceedings against Alberto Fujimori was set on December 10, 2007. No judgment [had] been pronounced until [February 2008]. Until February 28, 2008, twenty-nine sessions [had] been held within the witness examination stage.” 26. The Commission stated that, “it notices with satisfaction that important measures tending to the undertaking of an investigation regarding the eventual responsibility of Mr. Fujimori have been taken." Furthermore, it remarks that said reparation measure ordered by the Court should not only be sufficiently diligent, but should also be accomplished within a reasonable time. 27. That the Court appreciates the judicial actions taken in advance by the Peruvian authorities in order to investigate and -should it be the case- punish those responsible for the crimes committed in relation with the instant case. Said actions evidence the willingness of the State to fulfill its obligations to respect and guarantee the rights acknowledged by the Convention to the victim and his/her next of kin, and to ascertain the truth of what has happened, so as to prevent the impunity conditions which allow this type of facts from occurring again.4 28. That it is necessary that the State submit before the Inter-American Court updated information regarding the development of the judicial proceedings instituted in advance in compliance of this State obligation (operative paragraph five of the Judgment on merits of March 14, 2001). Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. C Series No. 101, par. 156; Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 10, par. 148, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 10, par. 146. 4