5 15. According to the State, an individual has been prosecuted as perpetrator of the crime of abuse of authority (supra Considering clause No. 12,) in relation to the events of the instant case. The Court views favorably the State’s express willingness to comply with the obligation to investigate the events occurred in this case and, ultimately, punish those responsible. Nevertheless, taking into account that it has been noted that the investigation of other potential perpetrators would depend upon a decision of the National Prosecutor’s Office, the Court considers it convenient to recall that treaty obligations of States Parties are binding upon all state powers and bodies (supra Considering clause No. 3.) Thus, in relation to the fact that the victim is entitled to move for an investigation, as observed by the State, in the case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, the Court indicated that the obligation to investigate "does not derive solely from the Treaty norms of International Law binding upon the States Parties, but also from the domestic legislation that makes reference to the duty to investigate certain unlawful conducts, and from the norms that allow the victims or their family members to present a complaint such that they may participate in the criminal proceedings in order to establish the truth of the events."5 16. In the Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen clause No. 3, para. 64,) this Court decided that “the State has the obligation to investigat[e] the human rights violations in this case and prosecute those responsible in order to avoid impunity." In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the State itself has noted that it is obliged to investigate the events amounting to human rights violations against Cesti-Hurtado (supra Considering clause No. 12.) This is an obligation compliance with which is independent of any individual action that the victim may take in the instant case, considering that the State has failed to indicate that the involved crimes should be prosecuted at party's initiative. 17. However, the Court has stated that the duty to investigate is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result.6 In this sense, the Court requests the State to submit information on all and every action taken to fully comply with this obligation. * ** 18. As regards the obligation to make payment of pecuniary damages (Operative paragraph No. 1 of the Judgment on reparations and Operative paragraph No. 3 of the Judgment regarding the interpretation of the judgment on reparations,) the State informed that "after the Arbitral Proceedings where a compensation was awarded to Cesti-Hurtado,” he “file[d] a request for execution of the arbitral award, which led to the granting and execution of a precautionary measure of attachment under the form of a withholding. This situation […] made payment of compensation materially unviable because […] there would be [two] payments for the same obligation […]” Nevertheless, during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) the State affirmed that "[c]urrently, the controversy [..] is based on the payment of default interest, which has been determined by the Judiciary in five million [forty-seven thousand eight hundred forty] dollars [..]" According to the 5 Cf. Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 104. 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; Case of González et al. (”Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 289; and Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 192.