6 22. The July 18, 2003 report of the Commission, in which it recognized the effort made by the State to comply with the payment of damages, interests, and costs; it considered positive the beginning of a criminal process, in spite of the time elapsed since the delivery of the Judgments by the Court, but it considered “insufficient” the results of said investigation in the terms pointed out by the representatives of the victim’s next of kin in the previous paragraphs. Also, the Commission pointed out that the State did not send any information whatsoever on the internal investigation that must be carried out in relation to violation of the right to life to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez and to establish “what happened in relation to the loss of the habeas corpus record filed by the next of kin of […] Castillo Páez as a result of the facts,” nor on measures taken to locate the mortal remains of the victim. Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to continue monitoring the compliance with Judgment and “in case a situation similar to the current one prevails,” to report on this to the General Assembly from the OAS, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention. 23. The November 13, 2003 brief of the Secretariat, in which it requested the parties, following directions from the President, to submit information related to the compliance with Judgment in the instant case. 24. The November 24, 2003 brief of the representatives of the next of kin, in which they reiterated that the operative paragraph one of the Judgment on reparations, dealing with pecuniary reparation, “ha[d] been satisfactorily complied with by the State […].” In relation to the obligation to investigate, they pointed out that “even though nearly sixty months have elapsed since said Judgment was delivered, the State of Peru has not satisfactorily fulfilled its duty to investigate the facts of the case, nor to identify and punish those responsible for them.” Particularly, the representatives saw it as progress in the investigation the fact that on September 11, 2003, the Third Higher Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima brought charges against sixteen suspects of abduction to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez and requested a sixteen-year imprisonment sentence to be imposed upon each of them, plus jointly and several payment of 30.000 nuevos soles (Peruvian currency,) as civil reparation to legal heirs. In relation with this indictment, the representatives of the next of kin requested taking precautionary measures to ensure the sixteen suspects would be present at the oral proceedings. Finally, the representatives stated their “concern for the lack of investigation of the violation of the right to life” of the victim. The representatives of the next of kin requested the Court to continue monitoring the compliance with Judgment. 25. The November 24, 2003 report of the Inter-American Commission, pointing out, firstly, that “it [would] not issue a ruling on operative paragraphs one, four, and five that, in accordance with the November 27, 2002 Order of the […] Court, were fulfilled by the State by paying the damages and interests to the next of kin of the victim.” Also, the Commission reiterated what the representatives of the next of kin had stated regarding the development of the accusation against the sixteen suspects. On the other hand, it considered “That the State must take action to locate the mortal remains of the victim and to determine wh[at] occurred in relation to the loss of the record of habeas corpus recourse filed by the next of kin of the victim when the facts took place.” The Commission requested the Court to continue monitoring compliance with Judgment. 26. The November 25, 2003 brief of the State, establishing that it “ha[d] paid in full the amount for reparations established by the Judgment on reparations […] plus