54 file 227-92, based on an application filed by the parents of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, and in police record No. 281-IC-H-DDCV. The outcome of said proceeding was the November 9, 1993 judgment, upheld by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on June 9, 1994 (supra para. 67.q), convicting a direct perpetrator and an accomplice, and also identifying a mastermind, whose trial was postponed. Said proceeding will be analyzed in this chapter. 141. The judgment issued by the Third Criminal Chamber of El Callao on November 9, 1993 (supra para. 67.p) established two types of persons liable for the facts in the instant case. First of all, two persons directly liable as perpetrators, one as the direct perpetrator and the other as an accomplice, who were sentenced to eighteen and six years in prison, respectively. 142. The perpetrators were found guilty of the crime of aggravated homicide, for which reason the Third Criminal Chamber of El Callao deemed that: for purposes of judicial adjustment of the penalty, it is necessary to take into account that the event is an extremely grave one, as they are members of the Peruvian National Police[,] who breaching their sacred duties and without the least respect for human life, in a premeditated and perfidious manner killed young students who were unable to defend themselves in any way […] creating a climate of insecurity, confusion and mistrust among all the population [.] 143. Secondly, the November 9, 1993 judgment also established the existence of a mastermind, although his “trial was postponed.” Regarding to the former two, both their prison terms ended in advance due to penitentiary benefits; and regarding to the latter, at the time the instant Judgment is being issued, thirteen years after the facts, he had been neither tried nor punished. Finally, said judgment also ordered civil reparations in the amount of twenty thousand nuevos soles in favor of the next of kin of the alleged victims, and this compensation has not been paid. 144. The prison terms of the direct perpetrator and the accomplice in the facts, pursuant to the judgment issued on November 9, 1993, ended in advance: on November 10, 1995 Francisco Antezano Santillán was granted the benefit of semiliberty and on November 18, 1994 Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo was granted the benefit of parole, through application of a system of penitentiary benefits set forth in Peruvian legislation. 145. The Court will not analyze the penitentiary benefits established in Peruvian legislation nor those granted to Francisco Antezano Santillán and Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo. However, without excluding any category of convicts, the Court deems that the State must carefully consider applying those benefits in cases of grave violations of human rights, as in the instant case, since granting them unduly may lead to a form of impunity. 146. The Court notes that, in the instant case, once the next of kin of the alleged victims filed the complaint, the State should have conducted a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, subject to the requirements of due process, to clarify the facts pertaining to the detention, torture, and extra-legal execution of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri and, specifically, to identify and punish those responsible, especially the mastermind or masterminds of the facts, in compliance with its obligation pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to ensure the rights to life and to humane treatment.