8 b) In relation to the attack of March 13, 2004, “Peru does not provide updated information regarding the investigations conducted to determine the responsible for the attack”; though according to the last reference, “the fact was brought to the attention of the court on March 19, 2004” and the Police Station of San Jerónimo de Tunán has a record of the occurrence of said incident. In that respect, it requested the State to provide more detailed and specific information regarding the proceeding conducted and, specially, regarding the current status of the investigation; c) In relation to the attack of August 30, 2004, the State informed, on previous occasions, on the provisional filing of the case corresponding to May 4, 2007, by means of Resolution N° 05-2007 of the Office of the Third Criminal Prosecutor of Huancayo, as well as new proceedings conducted to identify the responsible. However, it has not informed the specific results of such proceedings; d) In relation to the attack of June 1, 2005, it valued that the State had presented updated information but it indicated that it is not possible to observe from such information "whether the investigation that ended in the acquittal [of Luis Alberto Perez Documet] was adequately carried out, considering the need to avoid the repetition of similar facts.” It mentioned that it hopes the State “continues adopting all available measures to determine what happened and to impose the corresponding punishments as a mechanism to prevent new threats against the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries.” It clarified that, even though “the State ha[d] indicated that [this] proceeding refer[red] to seven incidents that occurred against the beneficiary between February 22, 1991 and June 1, 2005", from the documents forwarded by the State itself, it spring that this "case file was exclusively opened as a result of [the] attack suffered by Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza on June 1, 2005”, and e) In relation to the attack of September 15, 2005, the State has informed likewise, on previous occasions, on the provisional filing of the respective proceeding on June 13, 2006 by the Office of the Second Provincial Prosecutor of La Molina- Cieneguilla and on new procedures to identify the responsible, but it has not informed on the specific results of such procedures. 24. The Commission repeated that the information furnished by the State does not allow doing an adequate follow-up of the provisional measures ordered and, to this end, it requested the Court to require the State to inform "on all the proceedings instituted on occasion [of] the numerous attacks and acts of harassment against the beneficiaries.” Furthermore, it considered “that the risk situation in the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries have not changed inasmuch as [...] they indicate that they continue being victims of constant threats, and for this reason the provisional measures should be maintained.” 25. The Tribunal notes that a final judgment was entered in the main proceeding in which Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza rendered his testimony on October 15, 2008, that is, more than one year ago (supra Considering clause 19.a). Therefore, the proceeding instituted as a result of the attacks that gave rise to these provisional measures is irrelevant.