body, [given] that he, at the time the proceedings began and proceeded, was a retired military officer, and therefore, he could not be tried by military tribunals.” 11 As a consequence, in its Judgment on reparations, the Court noted that “the State has the obligation to investigate human rights violations identified in this case and prosecute those responsible in order to avoid impunity.” 12 18. As such, the State’s duty to investigate is limited to those facts and it is on this basis that Peru should take all necessary steps to comply with the provisions of the Court in the Judgments on the merits and reparations (supra Having seen clause 1). Therefore, the State must provide detailed, complete, and updated information, along with the appropriate supporting documentation, on the new procedures carried out in attempts at complying with this measure. In particular, the State must report on: a) all the steps taken in order to fully comply with this obligation, b) the state of the criminal proceedings that were put aside in the judgment of June 13, 2003, as well as the appropriate judicial and diplomatic steps and measures taken regarding the extradition of one of the main defendants, and c) refer specifically to the allegations made by the victims about the existence of other possible perpetrators of the facts. C. Obligation of payment of pecuniary damages (Operative paragraphs No. 1 of the Judgment on reparations and Operative paragraph No. 3 of the Judgment regarding the interpretation of the judgment on reparations) 19. The State reported that, by way of the resolution of April 8, 2009, of the Thirty-Fourth Civil Court of Lima, confirmed by the resolution of October 23, 2009, of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, the total amount owed for principal and legal interests was established until November 30, 2008, and on June 7, 2013, liquidation of these amounts was approved. In addition, the State indicated that Mr. Cesti Hurtado sought attachments on bank accounts and real estate owned by the State. In addition, it also presented information on various endorsements, charges, and payments made on behalf of Mr. Cesti Hurtado, by which, according to Peru, “full payment was made of the amount approved for liquidation.” Lastly, the State reported that on October 12, 2012, Mr. Hurtado Cesti proposed a new payment of legal interests as of 2009 to October 2, 2012 before the Thirty-Second Civil Court of Lima, wherein “the ruling by the judge is still pending.” 20. The victims argued that the process had been “plagued with delay tactics and in many cases intimidations against the administrators of justice in order to prevent the obligations relating to this point from being fulfilled.” Moreover, they forwarded the Order of October 17, 2013, of the Thirty Second Civil Court of Lima, which states that "the total liquidation of the debt “has been paid” and the amount “is not subject to any questioning.” However, according to the resolution, “since the mentioned approval, payments have been made in installments over the course of several years[, ] which could have generated additional interests.” Therefore, the appointed legal experts were ordered to draft the relevant report. Lastly, the victims claimed that “this obligation has not yet been fulfilled[, ] and the last liquidation of interests remains,” and they are waiting for the State to “avoid new attachments and delay in the execution of this obligation and to comply immediately with payment once the amount 11 Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, paras. 133, 143, and 151. 12 Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 64. 7