personal integrity that were declared by the Court in the Judgment are being investigated, and in particular, those violations that constitute torture and violence against women as determined in the Judgment. In this regard, the common intervener Feria Tinta said “there are several defects in the current proceeding” (supra Considering clause 11), inter alia, that “the crime is not adequately defined as a crime against humanity, “does not address all possible perpetrators” and “the aggrieved party is not properly identified, limiting the investigation to those who are deceased.” 21. In this regard, the Court highlights that in the Judgment it considered the fact that the proceedings do not cover all the violations of human rights analyzed in this case to be a violation of the right of access to justice (supra Considering clause 6), as both the criminal complaints issued at the time by the prosecution and the order to initiate criminal proceedings issued by the Supraprovincial Criminal Court referred only to crimes of homicide. 31 In the Judgment, the Court found international responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity, including rape and sexual violence. In that sense, although it does not fall on this Court to identify the criminal offenses for which the State must conduct investigations at the domestic level, the Court notes that still has not received an investigation from the State regarding the reasons why it has not been criminally investigated for the violations in this case. 32 22. In addition, based on the examination of the information provided, the Court notes that, following this Court’s issuance of a Judgment in 2006, no person has been investigated or prosecuted other than those 13 persons already charged at that time, 11 of which were police officers, which contrasts with the facts established in the Judgment concerning the magnitude of the force used. The Court considered that it had been proven that both police officers as well as special forces troops such as DINOES, UDEX, SUAT and USE and army troops participated in the so-called “Operative Transfer” (supra Having Seen clause 1). 33 It also had established that from the first day of the "operative" and during the subsequent three, weaponry was used which experts characterized as “of war” or characteristic of a “military incursion,” such as instalazza type grenades, bombs, rockets, artillery helicopters, mortars and tanks, and also tear gas, emetic and stun bombs and weapons of great speed that typically produce more tissue destruction and many internal injuries. The Court considers that these facts involved the participation and planning of a large number of State agents and high-ranking officials, which should be taken into account in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible. 23. The Court reiterates the provisions of the Judgment of this case, in the sense that the State is obligated to combat the situation of impunity by all available means (supra Considering clause 7). 34 The recognition and exercise of the right to truth in a specific situation is a means of reparation, and leads to an expectation of the victims, which the State must satisfy. 35 31 32 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 390. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 391. 33 Likewise, the Court considered it proven that during the days of the "operative,” on at least two occasions, it was published that former President, Alberto Fujimori, met within the facilities of the General Command of the Army, known as "Pentagonito "with the Cabinet of Ministers and police and military authorities, to assess the prison situation and determine the actions to follow. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras. 197.25, 17.30 and 216. 34 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 440. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997, Series C No. 34, para. 90; Case of García and Next of Kin V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012, Series C. No. 258, para. 197, and Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 440. 35 12