11 founded (supra Considering 8.a, 8.c, 8.d, 9.a, 9.c, and 10). Nevertheless, the elements of proof about the reasons for which the time frame of statute of limitations ran in the three processes referred to is not recorded, without arriving at an observation of the concrete results of the same. Also, the Tribunal does not count upon elements to determine if the processes are barred for reason of directed procedural actions or omissions with clear bad faith or negligence that provide for or permit impunity. Therefore, the Court requires that sufficient information be presented to determine if, in fulfillment of that ordered in the Judgment, the judges directed the respective processes to avoid undue delays or hindrances that lead to impunity, frustrating in this way the due judicial protection of human rights (supra Considering 17). Also, the Tribunal requires information that permits it to valuate if reasons exist, like previous signals (supra Considering 18), to question the declaration of “res judicata” in the process against Mr. Talledo Valdivieso. 20. That, by reason of that shown, it is essential that the State present the information ordered, complete and updated regarding the causes that originated the opposition and application of the time frame of the statute of limitations in the three criminal actions referred to, sending, if it is the case, copies to the relevant parties of the respective case files. Also, the Tribunal considers it necessary that the State offer ordered, detailed, complete and up-dated information about the procedures carried out and the advance of each one of the processes concerned with the present case, including information about the so-called “efficient collaboration agreement.” * * * 21. That regarding the duty of facilitating the conditions so that Baruch Ivcher Bronstein may take the steps necessary to recuperate the use and enjoyment of his rights as a majority shareholders of CLRSA, as he was until August 1, 1997, and of the reimbursement related to the dividends and other payments that were accorded to him as majority shareholder and employee of said company, both in the terms of internal legislation, the State and Mr. Ivcher informed that in the fulfillment of the judgment of the Inter-American Court “the Specialized Court of Public Law of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima issued the order of March 30, 2001, by means [of] which[:] (a) declared null the judicial resolutions that illegally granted to the minority shareholders the administration of [the company]; (b) declared null all the acts made by said shareholders for the protection of such orders [between September 5, 1997 until March 30, 2001, inclusive] and, (c) ordered the restoration of the legal activity of [the company] on September 5, 1997, and as a consequence, the restoration of the administrative structure that it had […] before the violation of the fundamental rights of [Mr.] Ivcher.” Beginning then, through the brief of July 23, 2003, Mr. Ivcher brought an arbitration demand against the Ministry of Justice of the Peruvian State, which protection is provided for in Law 27775, the Peruvian norm that regulates the procedure of execution of judgments issued by supranational tribunals. 22. That the petition of Mr. Ivcher included three principal claims and one accessory claim, meaning: 1) to order and declare that the State pay S/. 34’408,721.72 for profits and dividends not received, S/. 62’266,016.55 for the loss of value of the company and US$1,506.068.57 for remuneration not received; 2) to order and declare that the State pay US$ 3’002,147.84 and S/. 9’544,313.00 for the reason of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; 3) to order and declare that the State pay US$ 5’891,343.78 and S/. 16’443,801.27 for the deprivation of the use and enjoyment of their goods, and 4) to order the State to take charge of the inherent expenses of arbitration. On the date of July 4,