5 12. That, as regards the annulment of the military proceedings and the effects resulting therefrom, neither the State nor the representatives have submitted any information. 13. That the Inter-American Commission made reference to “[t]he lack of information about the actions taken to comply with […] this obligation” and it emphasized that “[i]t is imperative and important that the Court order the State to adopt, as soon as practicable, the measures necessary to comply in good faith with its international obligations deriving from the judgment of the Court.” * * * 14. That, as regards the investigation of the facts and the punishment of the perpetrators, the State mentioned that Mr. Raúl Aurelio Talledo-Valdivieso had been sentenced to four-year imprisonment for the crime of abuse of authority against Mr. CestiHurtado, and that said conviction had been later ratified by the Sala Penal Especial de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República (Special Criminal Chamber of the Peruvian Supreme Court of Justice). In turn, the State informed that Mr. Guido Eduardo GuevaraGuerra had been prosecuted for the same crime against Mr. Cesti-Hurtado, but “[t]he Peruvian judicial authority ordered that the proceedings be held in abeyance upon defendant’s failure to appear and issued national and international arrest warrants.” 15. That the representatives pointed out that “[u]p to date no State agent was able to prove that the proceedings they refer to result from the Judgment of the […] [InterAmerican] Court.” 16. That the Inter-American Commission referred to the “[f]act that the State failed to furnish specific information on the actions taken to effectively comply with the measures of reparation.” * * * 17. That the last report on the progress made regarding compliance with the Judgments delivered by the Court in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause 8) was submitted by the State on March 9, 2007. 18. That in said report the State failed to address the measures adopted in relation to the payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage and to the annulment of the military proceedings and the effects resulting therefrom (operative paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Judgment on reparations of May 31, 2001, supra Having Seen clause 3). 19. That the parties have failed to agree on the status of compliance with the pecuniary damages payment obligation and the investigation of the facts of the instant case and, in turn, on the punishment of the perpetrators (operative paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Judgment of May 31, 2002, supra Having Seen clause 3).