4 11. Furthermore, the Court highlights that the Commission and the representatives referred in general terms to the fact that, according to some public registries, Cesti-Hurtado would still be subject to prosecution. The Court requests the Commission and the representatives to accurately specify which registries are those and to define, in particular, in which registries the attachments executed against Cesti-Hurtado have allegedly not been lifted. * * * 12. As regards the investigation of the events occurred in the instant case and, ultimately, the punishment of the perpetrators (Operative paragraph No. 5 of the Judgment on reparations,) the State informed that during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10) "based on the reports that in due time submitted the National Prosecutor’s Office, [the Judiciary of Peru] instituted criminal proceedings against two persons, [..] the then acting Board Prosecutor […] and […] the Chairman of the Military Justice Board, […] for the commission of the crime of abuse of authority, and convicted the board prosecutor on June 13, 2003, which decision was affirmed by the court of appeals on January 30, 2004.” The State pointed out that it was awaiting the resolution of the "Inter-American Court [on] whether […] this sanction, this investigation, meets the overall standard set in its judgment.” The State further noted that “in Peru, the criminal investigations may be instituted by two ways: by individual report or by […] the Prosecutor's Office;" thus, it stated that Cesti and his representatives "ha[ve] failed to request [..] a new investigation [..]," even though they were entitled to do so, although it acknowledged that this is a state obligation. It highlighted that the Judiciary is awaiting “the Prosecutor’s Office’s request for further measures,” nonetheless “there are no pending proceedings [involving] other individuals […]" 13. The victim and his representatives noted that “the Peruvian State has also failed to comply with” this paragraph. In this regard, they affirmed that the convicted defendant, Raúl Aurelio Talledo-Valdivieso, is not the only responsible one, however “[n]o proceedings have been instituted against the Prosecutor or the officers who ordered the institution of proceedings [against Cesti-Hurtado,] the judges of the Military Court who unduly prosecuted and [..] convicted him, the military authorities who denied [his] release from prison, and the political authorities then in office who should have ordered his release.” According to the statements of Cesti-Hurtado and his representatives, the State “mention[ed] a judgment [against the] weakest member of the establishment, who served as executing judge, pretending to show that the State had complied with its obligations." During the private hearing held in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 10), the representatives of the victim stated again that, “a state of impunity is visible,” and noted that a conviction for the “crime of abuse of authority” renders inconsistent with the nature of the violations committed against Cesti-Hurtado. For this, they requested that the Prosecutor’s Office be required to report the persons involved in the violations. 14. The Commission noted that the “State is obliged to investigate and inform in full detail about the judicial proceedings and sanctions against those responsible for the violations which the Court have determined since 1999 […]” In this respect, during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) it asserted that the obligation to investigate "is not satisfied with the conviction of one individual," and reminded that "a great amount of judges were responsible for the defiance of writs of habeas corpus." Apart from that, it mentioned that, “the State should explain how it has resorted to all available means […] in the investigation and punishment of those responsible […]”