punishment of those responsible. 19 The Court considered it a positive assessment that the State was carrying out criminal proceedings in the regular courts, but considered that there was a violation of the right of access to justice in that the first criminal proceedings in the regular courts 20 were initiated about 13 years after the events occurred and only some of the violations were being investigated (the deaths of inmates) and they were not investigating violations to personal integrity. At the time of the Judgment, 13 people were being considered defendants, who at the time of the events held high ranking positions, such as the former President of the Republic Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, the former director of the Castro Castro prison, former Director of the National Police and the former Minister of the Interior, as well as ten other officials of the Peruvian National Police. 21 The Tribunal took into account "the importance of initiating a criminal case against former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, who is credited with having planned and executed the Operative Transfer 1”. 7. In the Judgment, the Court noted that even though the State had made recent efforts regarding the criminal investigation of some of the facts, violations in this case remained unpunished, and it reminded the State that it had an obligation to combat impunity by all available means. It noted that the obligation to investigate the facts of this case involves, inter alia, that Peru take "all necessary, judicial and diplomatic measures, to prosecute and punish all those responsible for the violations” and to take into account the seriousness of the facts regarding violence against women, taking into account the obligations under the treaties it has ratified on this matter. Similarly, the Court held that “the deaths and torture in this case committed against the victims by State agents [...] constitute crimes against humanity” and, therefore, the State “has an obligation to not leave these crimes unpunished and to this end, it must use the available domestic and international means, instruments, and mechanisms for the effective prosecution of such behavior and punishment of the perpetrators, in order to prevent and avoid that they remain unpunished.” 8. In ruling on the reparations, in operative paragraph eight and paragraphs 436 to 442 and 460 of the Judgment, the Court decided that the State “must, within a reasonable period of time, effectively investigate the facts in this case, identify and, where appropriate, punish those responsible, for which the State must initiate the relevant proceedings and effectively carry out the ongoing criminal proceedings as well as any new ones, adopt all necessary measures to elucidate the facts in this case, in order to determine the intellectual and material responsibility of those involved in such violations, and to publish the results of these criminal proceedings.” A.2) Information and observations of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 19 The specific considerations can be found in paragraphs 371 to 408 of the Judgment. Among other aspects, the Court highlighted the omissions regarding the cooperation, preservation, and analysis of the evidence prior to development of the criminal proceedings in course and the effect this had on the development of these proceedings. 20 On June 16, 2005, the State began a criminal proceeding in the 2nd Supraprovincial Criminal Court in order to investigate a part of the facts. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras 197.70 and 386. 21 The Court noted that the number of defendants contrasted with the fact that many police troops and Peruvian army troops participated in the "Operative Transfer 1,” as well as troops from specialized police units, and that new measures were underway to determine who the agents were involved in such acts. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, paras. 197.21 and 399. 7