the judicial investigation during the more than four years that have passed since the last judicial report.” 14. Regarding the expansion of the extradition of former President Alberto Fujimori, the common intervener Cassel noted that ‘‘[t]he State has the power to request the expansion of [the] extradition of [Alberto Fujimori], to include [the facts of the] Castro Castro case,’’ and that “[s]aid expansion was approved by the lower courts, by no later than April 2009.” It noted that, nevertheless, ‘‘after […] four and a half years have passed since the approval, the Council of Ministers of the Government - the final instance - has not expanded the request for extradition.” In this sense, he considered that “the State has not complied […] and does not have the political will to comply.” Moreover, he explained that “without requesting the extradition, even under a possible positive Prosecutorial Judgment, President Fujimori cannot be criminally prosecuted. 15. The Inter-American Commission noted that the criminal investigations “remain in the instructive stage and an effective punishment of those responsible has not been provided almost 7 years since the Judgment was rendered.” Moreover, “it not[ed] that the investigation only makes reference to a reduced number of Police members an against Mr. Alberto Fujimori”, and thus “it is important that the State report in detail on the additional steps it is taking to determine the responsibility of all the material and intellectual perpetrators of the facts in this case, which includes those persons who participated in the planning and execution of the military objective.” On the other hand, regarding the extension of the extradition of former President Alberto Fujimori, it stated that “it is fundamental that the State provide a specific answer regarding the procedures to expand jurisdiction on the extradition of former President Fujimori to Chile in such a way that these proceedings can continue in an effective manner,” without “delaying, due to diplomatic procedures, the possibility of progress regarding the other persons that are responsible in this case.’’ A.3) Considerations of the Court 16. The Court takes into account the existence of criminal proceedings No. 44-2005, No. 24-2006 and No. 67-2007 regarding the investigation of violations in this case. In its Judgment, the Court considers that the opening of proceedings No. 44-2005 and No. 672007 in the regular jurisdiction constitutes a positive step towards the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the deaths that occurred as a consequence of the facts (paragraph 390 of the Judgment). 17. According to the information provided by the parties during the monitoring of compliance stage, the Court has been able to establish the following in relation to the crimes under investigation, those charged for them, and the aggrieved persons: a) regarding the criminal proceeding No. 44-05, the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Court resolved to “open proceedings of first instance in the ordinary forum” on June 16, 2005, for the crime of “aggravated homicide-murder” against 13 persons (11 agents at the time of the National Police of Peru 24, the former Minister of the Interior and the former Director of the Castro Castro Prison), to the detriment of 40 persons, declared “identified deceased inmates” in the Judgment 25; 24 Among them, the former Director General of the National Police, the former General of the National Police of Peru, the former chief of DINOES of the National Police of Peru, the Mayor of the National Police of Peru in 1992, and the deputy chief of “Operative Transfer 1.” 25 Order of initiation of legal proceedings of June 16, 2005, issued by the 2nd Supraprovincial Criminal Court on June 16, 2005 (annex 3 to the State’s report of September 27, 2013, case file of Monitoring of Compliance with 10