8 agreement,” and if this could not be reached, it requested that the Court should rule on reparations. 33. On January 13, 2005, the representatives requested an extension until January 24, 2005, to present their observations on Peru’s communication “request[ing] that the agreement on reparations and its appendix should be declared legally invalid” (supra paras. 30 and 32), because that same day they would be holding a meeting with the State, during which “they [would] discuss, among other matters, the invalidity of the agreement on reparations signed on December 6, 2004.” On the instructions of the President, the Secretariat granted the requested extension until January 24, 2005. 34. On February 1, 2005, the representatives presented their observations on the request concerning the “legal invalidity of the agreement on reparations” presented by the State (supra paras. 30 and 32). On this occasion, they stated that “convinced that they were dealing with an agent validly appointed by the State to represent it, […] they began and concluded the negotiation and signature of the agreement on reparations”; consequently, they “considered that [the said] agreement [… was] valid.” In relation to the “observations made by the State [… r]egarding the obligation to investigate [(supra para. 32)], [the representatives] consider[ed] that the wording […] of [the] clause c[ould] be changed as follows: In accordance with the foregoing, the Peruvian State undert[ook] to carry out a complete, independent and impartial investigation that would allow the truth to be known and to identify, prosecute and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the execution of Pedro Huilca [Tecse], as well as those who have ensured the impunity and concealment of those who are really responsible. a) In this regard, the State undert[ook] to advance, with full respect for the right to a fair trial, the investigation that is currently underway before the Provincial Anti-Corruption-Human Rights Criminal Prosecutor, for the crime of aggravated homicide against members of the Colina Group, as alleged perpetrators of the execution of Pedro Huilca [Tecse] (in bold in the original)[;] b) The State also undert[ook] to advance, with full respect for the right to a fair trial, the proceedings being heard by the members of the Supreme Court’s Investigative Committee, for the crime of aggravated homicide, against Alberto Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinos, as alleged masterminds of the extrajudicial execution of Pedro Huilca [Tecse] (in bold in the original)[; and] c) Regarding the proceedings against the alleged members of Sendero Luminoso, Margot [...] Cecilia Domínguez Berrospi, Rafael Uscat[a] Mar[i]n[o], Hernán Ismael Di[pas] Vargas, José Marcos Iglesias Cotrina, Percy Glodoaldo Carhuaz Tejada and Yuri Higinio Huamani Gazani, that is currently being processed before the Fourth Criminal Court for Terrorist Crimes, the State undert[ook] to advance these proceedings with full respect for the right to a fair trial (in bold in the original). The next of kin of Pedro Huilca Tecse shall have full access to the investigations and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of the investigation and the corresponding trial, in accordance with Peruvian laws and the norms of the American Convention. The results of the proceedings shall be published so that Peruvian society can know the truth. As established by the Inter-American Court in other cases, the Peruvian State shall guarantee that the domestic proceedings to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts will have due effect. In addition, it shall abstain from using figures such as amnesty or prescription or establishing factors that exclude responsibility, such as measures which attempt to hinder the criminal prosecution or suppress the effects of a conviction[;]