observed that, on April 7, 2003, after the judgment had been delivered, the victims, through their representative, filed another criminal complaint against two individuals for allegedly committing the offenses of “omission, refusal and delay of acts that fell within their functions, undue delay in payments, abuse of authority, misappropriation and violence, and resisting authority” to their detriment. In response, on April 6, 2004, the Prosecutor General’s Office decided not to open an investigation into the reported facts and, on October 18, 2004, the First Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the inadmissibility of the subsequent appeal filed by the victim Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidobro against this decision.12 Hence, in the said order of November 24, 2009, the Court concluded that the victims had exhausted the legal actions and remedies available in the criminal investigations they had initiated in this matter, having reached the highest competent judicial body.13 14. In this regard, the Court underlines that, although it has verified that the victims exercised the domestic criminal remedies, this does not mean that the Court is declaring that the State has complied with the judgment as regards this reparation. On the contrary, having verified that, apart from processing the complaints filed by the victims themselves, the State did not adopt all the measures required to ensure a thorough investigation into the facts in order to determine, as appropriate, the respective responsibilities, in its order of November 24, 2009, the Court required the State to provide information on all the measures it had taken to comply with this obligation. Specifically, the Court asked the State to provide information on how the decisions taken to date by its authorities had responded to the Court’s rulings in this regard.14 15. Despite this, the State has not submitted the information requested or offered the corresponding explanations to clarify whether the rulings of the criminal courts rejecting the complaints filed by the victims took into consideration the provisions of the Court’s judgment. Consequently, the Court reiterates to the State the said request for information in relation to the criminal proceedings filed by the victims, so that it can assess compliance with this measure. 16. Moreover, bearing in mind that, to date, the State’s actions have been limited to processing the criminal complaints filed by the victims themselves, the Court finds it necessary to recall that, in the context of monitoring compliance with this measure, it must assess the State’s implementation, through all its powers and organs, of the provisions of the judgment. Thus, the actions brought by the victims in this regard are relevant to the overall analysis of the status of implementation of this measure of reparation, but in no way substitute the measures the State must take to comply with the obligation to conduct the corresponding criminal investigations. a.2. Regarding other investigations 17. Although the State argued that the “investigations aimed at punishing those presumed to be responsible for contempt of court [are only] of a criminal nature,” it also recognized that its domestic law provides for the possibility of disciplinary sanctions against an official who “[d]elays compliance with higher or administrative orders, or disputes their decisions” (supra sixth and seventh considering paragraphs). In addition, the Court recalls that the State itself, in the decisions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance (hereinafter “SBS”) of March 2002, established that “the courts had issued admonitions requiring compliance with the [1995] SBS decisions which, if not complied 12 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, thirteenth considering paragraph. 13 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, fourteenth considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, fourteenth considering paragraph. 5