11 keep the Court informed of the measures it is taking to comply with each one of the measures of reparation the Court orders is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the case as a whole. * * * 8. In monitoring for full compliance with the Judgments on merits and reparations delivered in this case and after examining the information provided by the State, by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin in their briefs on compliance with the reparations (supra Having Seen 4, 5, 6 and 7), the Court has confirmed that Peru has complied with the commitment to begin the “procedure to sign and promote ratification of the International Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” (operative paragraph 5(c)) of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). The representatives supplied a copy of Legislative Resolution No. 27,998 of June 11, 2003, wherein the State acceded to that treaty (supra Having Seen 5(f)). 9. In monitoring for full compliance with the Judgments on merits and reparations delivered in this case and after examining the information provided by the State, by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin in their briefs on compliance with the reparations (supra Having Seen 4, 5, 6 and 7), the Court notes that it does not have sufficient information on the following points whose compliance is still pending: a) the duty to investigate the facts to determine the persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the Judgment on merits, and to publicly disseminate the findings of that investigation and punishment of the persons responsible (operative paragraph five of the March 14, 2001 Judgment on merits). The representatives indicated that two criminal cases were in progress: one was at the trial phase and involved a number of defendants; the other was with the court of second instance, which was the Special Criminal Law Chamber of the Peruvian Supreme Court. The defendant in that second case was former president Alberto Fujimori (supra Having Seen 5(a) and 6(a)); b) payment of the compensation ordered for the beneficiaries of Benedicta Yanque Churo and Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto (operative paragraph 2(b)) of the November 30, 2001 judgment on reparations). In its report the State wrote that the payments to the beneficiaries of the victims were pending, beneficiaries who had established their kinship incontrovertibly. The Court finds that the information supplied by the representatives (supra Having Seen 6(b)) is somewhat confusing, i.e., that the State had supposedly told them that it “[could not] comply with the [respective] payment for fear of someone filing suit thereafter”; c) the payment of the compensation ordered for Mr. Martín León Lunazco, son of victim Máximo León León (operative paragraph 2(c)) of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). The State did not report on its compliance and the representatives made no reference to the payment;