26. In operative paragraph 9 and paragraphs 442 and 460 of the Judgment, the Court ordered that the State “must, within a reasonable period of time, establish the necessary means in order to ensure that the information and documentation related to police investigations regarding facts as serious as those of the present case be conserved in a manner such that they do not obstruct the corresponding investigations.” 27. The Court deems it appropriate to recall that this measure was ordered as a guarantee of non-repetition, considering that “State authorities carried out important omissions regarding the recovery, preservation, and analysis of the evidence,” during "actions adopted by the State between May 1992 and the opening of the first ordinary criminal proceeding in June 2005” for the investigation of the events that occurred in the Castro Castro Prison between May 6 and 9, 1992. This lack of preservation of evidence consisted of, among other things, that with respect to police actions in April 1998, “passive documentation produced by the Operative and Administrative Units of the Office of Criminal Investigation during the years 1990, 1991, and 1992 was incinerated, among which a great part of the internal case file of the present case was burned,” pursuant to a Ministerial Ruling and the Rules of Procedure for Police Documentation. 37 B.2) Information and observations by the Parties and the Inter-American Commission 28. The State reported that in the framework of the criminal proceedings No. 44-2005 and No. 67-2007 (supra Considering clause 9) “the Police Authorities have largely contributed to the clarification of the facts, providing evidence, which has served as the successful basis for information that the prosecution [...] has used to [f]ormulate the respective [c]riminal complaint.” Moreover, it also noted that the National Police has formulated three “Police Reports,” with which “the respective criminal proceedings were initiated in each case, before their joinder,” and “the police stage concluded with the preliminary investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor.” In this regard, it considered that "the National Police reported and documented the most significant events from their investigations into the facts, and as such it has been possible for [the investigation] to reach the procedural stage.” Therefore, it requested that the Court "close this issue. 29. The common interveners and the Inter-American Commission made no specific observations regarding the information presented by the State neither in the private hearing nor in its report of September 24, 2013 regarding the implementation of this measure of reparation. In a brief of written observations prior to the hearing, Mr. Cassel said “no notice has been provided of the measures the State has carried out so far to comply with this measure.” B.3) Considerations by the Court 30. The Court appreciates the information presented by Peru regarding the actions that it has adopted, by way of the National Police, to document and to provide evidence that has served as a basis for initiating criminal proceedings as of 2005 relating to a part of the violations in this case (supra Considering clauses 16 and 17). However, the Court recalls that the measure ordered is comprehensive and goes beyond this case, since the burning of the documentation related to this case occurred pursuant to a Ministerial Ruling and the Rules of Procedure for Police Documentation, that is, it came from the application of regulated domestic legislation. Therefore, to comply with the measure ordered (supra Considering clauses 26 and 27), Peru must bring its domestic regulations into compliance so 37 Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras. 197.62 and 385. 14