7 5. The May 31, 2004 brief in which the Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ), representative of the victims and their next of kin, submitted its comments on the State’s April 1, 2004 report (supra Having Seen 4). FEDEPAZ wrote the following: a) the State reported nothing about the investigation into the facts or the two criminal proceedings instituted. One of these is now in trial, and has a number of defendants; the other is now before the court of second instance, which is the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. The defendant in the second of the two cases is former president Alberto Fujimori, and measures are also being taken to secure his extradition from Japan; b) as for the compensation ordered for the minors, which is to be deposited in “trust funds”, the State’s delay is unreasonable and unwarranted since it should have deposited the amount in question back in the first quarter of 2002, as ordered in the Court’s Judgment (supra Having Seen 2) and in the Order on Compliance (supra Having Seen 3). FEDEPAZ is requesting that the Court call upon the State to deposit what is owed and pay the interest earned and the fee for the delinquency caused by that noncompliance; c) as for the educational benefits, FEDEPAZ acknowledges the State’s efforts. However, the information it provided is a non-updated repetition of the information it reported in earlier communications; in other words, it does not name the persons who have benefited by the measures it has adopted or any measures it has carried out in 2003 and 2004; d) concerning the symbolic reparation, FEDEPAZ is in agreement with the State on the site selected to erect the monument and on the artist commissioned; however, it would like to know exactly when this work is to be done; e) the State provided no information at all on any progress made toward including the most suitable legal classification to define the crime of extrajudicial execution, even though Congress does have a functioning “Commission to Review the Penal Code”, created by Law No. 27837. FEDEPAZ asked the Court to call upon the State to present information on the progress made in this area; and f) Peru did not report any information on the progress made toward signing and ratifying the International Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, even though it acceded to that Convention through “Legislative Resolution No. 27998 of June 11, 2003.” FEDEPAZ supplied a copy of that Legislative Resolution and made specific reference to the “reservation” –interpretive declaration- that the State filed when ratifying that convention. 6. The brief of June 1, 2004, through which the National Coordinator for Human Rights (CNDDHH), representative of the victims and their next of kin, presented its comments on the State’s April 1, 2004 report (supra Having Seen 4). It wrote the following: