7 life, person and health and serious injury, the fact that 12 years is the maximum term for extinguishment, and considering [further] that this case entails the joint commission of multiple serious crimes." In this regard, it claimed to be "carrying out very thorough monitoring of the investigation, but that unfortunately there are limits because the judicial branch has full independence to interpret the facts and decide on the types of crimes and the application of certain measures of defense, in this case the statute of limitations." 23. That the representative of the victim noted that "...the State […] is not only the Executive Branch, but each and every one of the branches of government [and] that each one of them is under obligation to abide by the judgments of the [InterAmerican Court]." She also pointed out that a number of "irregularities [had been committed] in the proceedings against these individuals [Briones and Alvarado], all of it intended to favor them and give them the opportunity to file challenges." Moreover, the representative stated that "...in his report, the Prosecutor took no position whatsoever regarding the expert opinions of psychologists that appeared in the case file, and failed to consider the context of systematic violation of human rights that existed in Peru at the time María Elena Loayza was seized." The representative closed by sating, "It is unfortunate that the State itself declared on its own motion that the statute of limitations had run out on the hideous crimes committed against María Elena Loayza[.] In its July 27, 2007 decision, the Third Chamber of Defendants on Bail in Lima responded to the two acquittals of defendants Laguna, Manrique, Briones and Aliaga. It reversed the part of the sentence that dismisses as groundless the objection of res judicata as well as the part that acquitted the defendants, and amended the decision, declaring on its own motion that the criminal action had lapsed and ordering that the case files be closed." Finally, the representative explained that "the State cannot declare that the statute of limitations on the criminal action has run out, because this is part of the obligation to redress that the State of Peru acquired as a consequence of the judgment handed down by this Court." 24. That the Commission stated that this was is a particularly important matter, as one of the objectives of the Inter-American Human Rights system was to guarantee that perpetrators were investigated and punished, which was one of the main reasons why victims appealed to this […] Court. It therefore asked the Court to judge as it had on other occasions and insist […] that provisions for amnesty, for statues of limitations and for creating releases from responsibility were inadmissible when their purpose was to interfere with the investigation and punishment of those responsible. Moreover, it asked the Court to remind the State of Peru that it was under obligation to move swiftly to carry out the orders given by the Court in its judgment. 25. That the Memorandum of the Meeting (supra Having seen no. 12) verifies that the State delivered "a copy of document no. 023-2007-CDH no. 10.435/AML on this point that it had submitted to the judicial branch at the request of the victim." However, the document was not submitted to this Court. The Court deems it necessary for the State to provide information on the procedures and other actions being taken for the purpose of complying with this obligation. * * *