4. The Court deems it necessary to recall that, in exercising its powers of monitoring of compliance, it requested the State on several occasions to, in accordance with the provisions of operative paragraph 24 of the Judgment, file a report on the implementation of all measures of reparation ordered in this case. Such requests were not carried out by Peru in due time. The time period established for filing of the report lapsed on June 20, 2008, and it was not until October 6, 2010, that Peru submitted a report in which it did not mention all the measures of reparation, rather it mainly provided information about the tasks requested by the Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice to several authorities or State agencies requesting information from them or asking them to undertake action regarding compliance. Earlier, on August 3, 2007, and August 4, 2009, it referred to the obligation to investigate, identify and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts, and it provided “certified copies of major procedural parts” in the 24-2006 proceeding. Subsequently, on January 23, 2013, Peru submitted a report on compliance with the Judgment, after multiple requirements and the establishment of new time periods by the Court or its Presidency. 17 During the private hearing held on August 19, 2013, Peru presented additional and complementary information, and it also provided a written report submitted on September 24, 2013. While the Court appreciates the information provided by the State, it also notes that the delay in submission constituted a breach of its duty to inform, 18 and thus it has hampered the monitoring of compliance with the reparations ordered in this case, and it has also denoted the delay in implementing them. 5. Consequently, the Court will assess the information presented by the parties regarding the various measures of reparation and the respective observations, and will determine the State’s level of compliance. For this, the Court will take into account the information it received during the 2013 year, as it is the most current information. A. Obligation to investigate the facts that led to the violations in this case, identify, and where applicable, punish those responsible (operative paragraph 8 of this Judgment) A.1) Measure ordered by the Court 6. In its Judgment, the Court declared Peru responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in relation to Articles 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, and 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, because the domestic proceedings that were carried out did not constitute effective remedies to ensure access to justice within a reasonable period of time, and did not encompass the criminal elucidation of the facts, investigation and, where appropriate, 17 By way of the notes from the Secretariat of the Court of November 5, 2008, February 2 and March 5, 2009, pursuant to instructions by the Acting President of the Court in this case, the request was reiterated to the State asking it to present its first report on monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. In the Order of April 28, 2009, the Court ordered a new period for the State, until June 1, 2009 to file the mentioned report. Peru did not file the required report. On August 4, 2009, the State filed information regarding its obligation to investigate. On August 3, 2010, a new, nonextendable, period was allotted, until October 3, 2010. In the Order of December 21, 2010, the Acting President in this Case held that “the State has had an adequate and reasonable period of time to comply with its obligation to prepare and file its first complete report on compliance with the Judgment, including two new opportunities granted by the Court to submit them […]. Nevertheless, the State has not provided the information that allows the Court to determine the state of compliance with the Judgment.” 18 Cf. Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2013, Considering clause 17, and Case of Castillo Páez V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 14. 6