7 f) On August 25, 2003, Mr. Javier Mujica Ruiz filed a motion to annul against such decision, which was declared inadmissible by the First Transitory Chamber in Criminal Matters of the Superior Court of Lima18. 13. That, from the information tendered by the parties, it spring that, once this Tribunal delivered the Judgment, on April 7, 2003, the victims, by means of their representative, filed a new criminal complaint against Mr. Luis Contravarria Chekley and Claudio Sarmiento Molina for the alleged commission of the crimes of “omission, reluctance and delay in the performance of duties, undue delay in the payment, abuse of authority, illegal misappropriation and violence and for disobeying the authority" to their detriment19. In that respect, on April 6, 2004 the Solicitor General’s Office issued a resolution by means of which it decided not to open the investigation into the facts reported, based on that the criminal proceeding for the same facts was still open20. On October 18, 2004 the First Transitory Chamber in criminal matters of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the inadmissibility of the complaint appeal filed by Mr. Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidrobo against said decision21. 14. That, considering the above mentioned, it is clear that the victims of the instant case have exhausted the instances and remedies available in the conduct of the criminal investigations initiated by them in this matter, until they reached the last competent judicial instance (supra Considering clauses 8, 12 and 13). It has not been proven, however, that the State has adopted, apart from the processing of the complaints filed by the victims, all the measures necessary to guarantee a thorough investigation into the facts of the instant case in order to determine, if applicable, the criminal, administrative or disciplinary responsibilities provided under the Peruvian legislation. From the decisions made by the State in this matter, it neither spring that the domestic courts have taken into account the terms established in the Judgment of this Court, by dismissing the complaints filed. To that purpose, it is worth recalling that, in the instant case, the Tribunal determined the non-compliance with the judicial decisions made at the domestic level that referred to the payment of the pensions and that this constituted a violation of the rights enshrined in articles 21 (Right to Property) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the five pensioners. 15. That, since its first rulings, the Court has indicated that, “The duty to investigate, like the duty to prevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the 18 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on August 25, 2003 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, page 1096). 19 Cf. complaint of April 7, 2003 filed by Javier Mujica Petit before the Solicitor General's Office (record on monitoring compliance, volume IV; pages 1040 to 1054). 20 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the on-duty Solicitor General on April 6, 2004 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, page 1055 to 1057). 21 Cf. resolution issued by the First Transitory Chamber in Criminal Matters of the Supreme Court of Lima of October 18, 2004 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, page 1097).