12 12. That the victim and his representative have pointed out that the State has failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate the events that led to the Court’s Judgments and punish those responsible for the violations committed against the victim, since the criminal proceedings the State has mentioned in this judgment compliance monitoring process are not aimed at punishing the perpetrators of the human rights violations committed against Mr. Cesti-Hurtado, nor are they concerned with the crimes and facts established by this Court. Moreover, the victim and his representative reported that in these proceedings the victim has been allowed to take part as a witness only rather than as an aggrieved party. The Commission has made similar remarks. Moreover, the State has not disproved the foregoing, nor has it presented detailed information from which the Court can appreciate any progress in the compliance with the Judgment in this regard. 13. That both the victim and his representative, as well as the Inter-American Commission, agree that the State has not yet annulled all the effects of the military court proceedings instituted against Mr. Cesti-Hurtado, which still cause him much trouble. The State has failed to satisfy the Court not only that the military court proceedings have been annulled but also that the ensuing effects will cease to prejudice the victim. 14. That Mr. Cesti-Hurtado, faced with the State’s failure to comply with the Judgments of this Court and the arbitration award delivered in the instant case, filed an action with the Thirty-seventh Civil Court in and for Lima to enforce said award, which led to the seizure of the State’s funds and the subsequent court order compelling payment of US$ 3,065,085.00 (three million, sixty-five thousand and eighty-five US Dollars) to the victim. However, the judgment of the Thirty-seventh Court was appealed and the higher court annulled the proceedings. 15. That, in light of the foregoing, the victim considers that the State has no intention to comply in good faith with the Court’s orders and that, on the contrary, it has chosen to delay and hinder payment. That the Commission has taken the view that court decisions intended to enforce compliance with the obligations arising out of the Judgments of the Court must be observed, and so must any other efforts made by government authorities to guarantee the rights of Mr. Cesti-Hurtado. 16. That the State has justified the declaration of nullity on the grounds that certain requirements set forth in the domestic law have not been met. 17. That it follows from the documents submitted by the victim that the Thirtyseventh Civil Court in and for Lima has been requested to compel Mr. Cesti-Hurtado to return the money received (supra Considering clause No. 14). In other words, according to the State, Mr. Cesti-Hurtado is not legally authorized to keep the money collected under the relevant court order. Therefore, the obligation to pay pecuniary damages ordered by this Court has not been fully complied with. 18. That it is not within the purview of this Court purview to determine whether the payment made to Mr. Cesti-Hurtado conforms to the Peruvian laws. What the Court must determine at this stage of the proceedings is whether or not the State has fulfilled the obligations arising from its Judgments.