4 Special Criminal Court under file No. 62-2007. On January 18 and November 7, 2008, the aforementioned Court ordered the “discontinuance of the proceeding” against two defendants accused of forced disappearance, and on June 27, 2008 it declared, ex officio, “the res judicata plea to be admissible” with respect to nine defendants accused of crimes against public order and public peace by way of conspiring against the State. On July 19, 2010, the Office of the First Supraprovincial Public Prosecutor formalized a supplementary criminal complaint against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and eight of the persons included in the complaint made by the Provincial Public Prosecutor’s Office for the criminal offence set forth in Article 108 of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the events. This complaint was also against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and seven of the aforementioned individuals for the forced disappearance of Mr. Gómez Palomino. On August 31, 2010, the Criminal Court ruled that: a) there was “no cause to proceed” against four of those accused of forced disappearance, or against nine individuals accused of the crime against the victim's life, person and health (murder), and b) to “expand the initial investigation order” to include Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and three others for the forced disappearance of Mr. Gómez Palomino, as well as charging Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and eight others for the crime against the life, person and health (murder with malice aforethought) of Mr. Gómez Palomino. Lastly, on December 30, 2010, the proceedings were bound over to the Second Special Criminal Court and, in turn, to the Segunda Fiscalía Superior Penal Especial [Second Supreme Special Public Prosecutor’s Office] in Lima on February 3, 2011. At this time, the indictment against the defendants was still to be carried out. The State also reported that it was coordinating matters in order to ensure that “cases investigated in domestic courts, as a result of [Inter-American] Judgments, be speedily processed.” 7. The representatives indicated that part of the State’s proffered information has already been the subject of previous submissions by the representatives and the State itself. They also stated that more than three years after the commencement of criminal proceedings, a public trial preceding issuance of a judgment has yet to begin even though “this process does not entail any great complexity or difficulty in order to amass the body of evidence because it concerns a single event.” On the other hand, the representatives indicated that “since 2007, in the course of the criminal proceedings in the ‘Case of La Cantuta’ [...], four ex-members of the Colina group have signed cooperation agreements with the Office of the Public Prosecutor [in which they recognized] their responsibility for [Mr. Gómez Palomino’s] disappearance and have provided important factual information concerning the acts and the participation of the ten defendants who have yet to be convicted.” According to the representatives, this information “has not been used to locate the remains of the victim.” Similarly, they noted that the information on offer from the State does not account for the lines of investigation of the case, nor does it provide any insight into compliance with the agreements on effective cooperation mentioned above, specifically regarding punishments imposed and any corresponding civil reparation measures. Concerning the coordination efforts mentioned by the State supra, the representatives continued to await an indictment against these ten defendants, the initiation of the corresponding oral proceedings, and a judgment within a reasonable period. 8. The Commission positively assessed the State’s submission of documentary evidence relating to the most recent advances in domestic proceedings. Nonetheless, it noted that the State “did not provide information any different from that which the representatives have already made available to the Tribunal,” which was the subject of its observations. In this regard, the Commission deems it important that the State present information regarding time periods for its proceedings, the prospects for issuing an indictment, and the date in which – according to Peruvian criminal procedure – the trial would be set to begin. 9. The Tribunal accordingly observes that although the information presented by the