October 21, 2010, and it was not received, despite repeated reiterations by the Secretariat. As part of the monitoring of compliance hearing in this case, on May 23, 2013, the State agreed to submit the accompanying report. In view of the abovementioned, the reports from the representatives, prior to the hearing, referred to the State’s lack of action to comply with the judgment in question, more than three years after it was published and more than 19 years since the disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro. In this regard, the Court considers it appropriate to remind Peru, as it has done on previous occasions, 8 that without the proper information from the State, this Court cannot carry out its role of supervising the execution of judgments. To provide sufficient information on the adopted measures is a State obligation established by this Court. 9 8. In light of the information provided to the Court, the Court will rule on the actions that the State reported on during and after the hearing on this case. A. Obligation to effectively conduct the criminal proceedings in process and any future proceeding in relation to the forced disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, to determine, within a reasonable time, the perpetrators and instigators who are responsible for the facts of this case and effectively impose the punishments and consequences according to the law (fifth operative paragraph) 9. In a brief of May 29, 2013, the State reported that “on October 20, 2011 the Second Superior Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes of Corruption by State Officials filed a criminal charge against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, De Bari Hermoza Nicolos Rios, Jorge Enrique Nadal Paiva and Enrique Oswaldo Oliveros Pérez as indirect perpetrators for the crime against humanity of forced disappearance of Kenneth Anzualdo Castro and others. In this sense, it determined that there was merit to proceed to the trial stage.” Subsequently, it noted that on April 3, 2012, the trial began before the Second Liquidating Criminal Court of Lima, but due to the replacement of one of its members, it was discontinued and the new trial began on January 22, 2013, which initiated with the questioning of witnesses and defendants. In addition, during the private hearing on compliance, the State specified that the delay in the proceeding was due to the fact that prior to the oral trial, the criminal court that heard the case had to be reinstated, and in the restructuring, some stages of the proceeding were repeated. 10. The representatives indicated during the private hearing on monitoring of compliance of May 23, 2013, that "there was no case or investigation at the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the perpetrators of the disappearance of the victim.” In addition, they stated that "in relation to the faults in the criminal proceeding, [ ... ] these were due [ ... ] to a change of the judges due to some administrative measures that were taken within the judiciary that could in part be a measure that allows the judges [ ... ] to continue hearing their cases, especially in these types of proceedings, until the judgment is issued, and as such, this is not a strictly legal issue but also one that has to do with the administrative decisions that the Peruvian judiciary can render.” This was confirmed by the representatives in brief dated August 8, 2013, which stated that "given the aforementioned changes in the configuration 8 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clauses five and eight, and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering clauses twenty-one and twenty-two. 9 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners, supra, Considering clause five, and Case of López Álvarez V. Honduras. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2013, Considering clause fifteen. 4