5 refers mainly to facts that the Court knew when delivering the Judgment (supra Having seen paragraphs 4, 5 and 6).6 10. That, as the Court had indicated in the Judgment, although the State has convicted four individuals as the perpetrators of the death of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, the existing judicial mechanisms have not been effective to investigate and, if applicable, punish all those responsible, particularly the masterminds of the acts, a situation that promotes a climate of impunity.7 11. That, it is essential that the State submit additional updated information on the specific measures it is taking to implement the repeated arrest warrants for the alleged mastermind of these acts, César Augusto Santoyo Castro, as well as advising whether it is taking any other steps to identify other possible masterminds. This is fundamental for the Court to be able to assess compliance with this measure of reparations, whose purpose is to avoid impunity in this case. * * * 12. That, according to the State’s report, by Resolution No. 07-1991 of September 25, 2006, the Third Criminal Court of El Callao declared admissible de oficio the plea of prescription of the criminal action against Vicente Canales Ambrosio, who had been accused of an “offense against the Judiciary, to the detriment of the State” during the criminal proceedings concerning the death of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers (supra Having seen paragraph 4). 13. That the Court does not have the said Resolution No. 07-1991 issued by the Third Criminal Court of El Callao on September 25, 2006, and therefore requests the State to forward it so that the Court may examine its findings and verify whether the prescription of the criminal proceedings against Vicente Canales Ambrosio would be admissible in light of international law. The Court considers it pertinent to reiterate its consistent case law in this regard and reminds the State that “in criminal matters, prescription determines the extinction of the punitive intention owing to the passage of time and, in general, limits the punitive power of the State to prosecute the unlawful conduct and punish the perpetrators. This is a guarantee that the judge must duly observe s regards all those accused of a crime. Notwithstanding the above, under international law the prescription of criminal proceedings is inadmissible and inapplicable in the case of grave human rights violations. The consistent case law of the Court has confirmed this.”8 * * * 14. That, according to information provided by the State and the representatives, on May 30, 2006, the State organized a ceremony during which it named an educational center in the Province of El Callao after the brothers Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri (supra Having seen paragraphs 4 and 5). This educational center is located at “Av. Buenos Aires CPV Oquendo-Callao.” The Court observes that, according to Cf. Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 67(p), 67(q) and 67(s). 7 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 6, paras. 127 and 132. 8 Cf. Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 111, and Almonacid Arellano v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 110. 6