4 and that the Court should continue to monitor compliance with this point as well as of the obligation of delivering the victim’s mortal remains to his next of kin. 13. The January 7, 2002 report, in which the State reported on internal action taken to fulfill the Judgment on reparations, including a request to start an investigation on the facts of the case, the beginning of a complementary investigation by the prosecutor, the formalization of the criminal accusation against the sixteen suspects, the issuance of a brief to start the investigative stage and of the “Order of appearance” of the suspects, who were prohibited from leaving the country. 14. The January 11, 2002 brief of observations from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” o “the Inter-American Commission”,) stating its conformity with the payment of damages awarded. In relation to the investigation on the facts of the case, the Commission affirmed that, at the beginning of the investigative stage “some of the […] suspects were not included […]like [for instance …] two members of the [N]ational [P]olice of Peru, who falsified and made disappear the record of detainees of the Police Station of San Juan de Miraflores, where [Mr.] Castillo Páez was taken.” 15. The October 4, 2002 brief from the Secretariat in which, following directions from the President, the State was requested to submit detailed information on the compliance with Judgment on reparations; as well as the reminders of that request, sent by the Secretariat to the State on November 5 and November 19, 2002. 16. The November 27, 2002 Order of the Court regarding compliance with Judgment in the instant case, in which the Court considered, inter alia, that: […] while monitoring the comprehensive fulfillment of the [J]udgment on reparations in the instant case, the Court has substantiated that the State paid the amounts corresponding to damages and interests to the victim’s next of kin, in compliance with operative paragraphs one, four, and five of the Judgment on reparations. Likewise, the Court notes that the State reported on actions required to “promote the criminal process […] to investigate the facts and punish the responsible parties for the arrestdisappearance of [Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez].” Also, the Court ruled: 1. That the State [had] the duty to take all required action to make effective and to promptly fulfill the November 27, 1998 Judgment on reparations passed by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights in the case Castillo Páez, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. That the State should submit to the Court, no later than March 30, 2003, a detailed report on the action taken in order to comply with the Court’s ruling in the considering nine of the […] Compliance Resolution.2 3. That the victim’s representatives and next of kin, as well as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, should submit their observations in relation to the report submitted by the State within two-months from the time said report is submitted. […] 2 Considering nine of the November 27, 2002 Order of the Court regarding compliance with Judgment in the Castillo Páez v. Perú Case establishes that “the Court considers it pertaining that the State notifies it on the progress in the investigation carried out in Peru against several individuals accused for the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez by the Peruvian National Police in compliance with the second operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations.”