7 committed against the beneficiary, among other people. They considered that there is enough evidence to prove “the arbitrary detention and use of cruel physical and psychological tortures to which Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza was subjected] which constitute crimes against humanity"; b) “There has been no progress” in investigation into the attack of March 13, 2004; c) In relation to the attack of August 30, 2004, the proceeding "is still provisionally closed, as evidence of the negligence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to complete the investigation, notwithstanding the evidence that was duly furnished”; d) As to the fact of July 1, 2005, related to case file N° 659-2007, they considered "it was unfortunate that the Office of the Seventh Provincial Prosecutor in Criminal matters of Lima had declared that ‘there are no grounds to file charges’ […] evidencing the fact that the Peruvian State tries, as usual [...] to protect the perpetrators of the human rights violations, letting the attacks committed against [Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza] go unpunished"; and e) in relation to the attack of September 15, 2005, "as with the other investigative procedures[,] it has been filed without certainty of the interest the Peruvian State has in effectively finding the responsible.” 22. The representatives considered that the lack of investigation on the facts against Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza “shows the lack of willingness [of the State to] identify the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks.” Furthermore, they required the Court to maintain the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary and his family, since "the threats and attacks made by the perpetrators of human rights violations have not stopped, as well as the judicial harassment on the part of the State, considering that the victim is witness […] to tortures [committed against] other victims.” Particularly, they pointed out that Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza is a witness before the Second Criminal Chamber of Lima in case file N° 733- 08, which was opened for the crime of forced disappearance to the detriment of Francisco Juan Fernández Gálvez and Alcides Copa Taype, which forms part “of the case [of the students of the] Universidad Nacional del Centro of Peru.” In addition, regarding the protective measures for counsels Raúl Angel Ramos De la Torre and César Manuel Saldaña Ramirez, they requested to maintain such measures, “due to, up to the present [August 2008], they are controlled by phone tapping, therefore a constant threat hung over them.” 23. As to the investigation into the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures, the Commission indicated that: a) In relation to the information presented by the State, on August 2, 2007, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Junin acquitted Luis Augusto Pérez Documet. On October 15, 2008, the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided to deny the motion to annul said judgment and by means of official letter of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Junin of June 10, 2009, the case was filed;