crime of terrorism against the State, which concluded with a guilty verdict handed down on February 2, 2006. In this regard, the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final judgment dated July 5, 2007, declared the “Nullity” of the ruling that convicted one of the accused “as author of the crime against public order – terrorism – murder of Pedro Crisólogo Huilca Tecse, against the State, amended the judgment and acquitted the said individual of the charges against him”; (ii) the criminal proceedings before the Fourth Supra-provincial Criminal Court for the crime against public order – terrorism against the State, under file No. 144-03 or 485-03, in which, on March 21, 2007, the Transitory Criminal Chamber decided that there was no nullity in the judgment of March 7, 2006, delivered by the National Criminal Chamber that acquitted those accused of the charges, and (iii) the investigation into the presumed members of the Colina Group, during which, in a decision of the Third Special Criminal Court of April 28, 2010, it was decided “to open preliminary proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and others for the presumed crime against life, body and health – aggravated homicide – of Pedro Huilca Tecse.” Nevertheless, the State did not present information on any progress in the criminal complaint filed by the Prosecutor General on April 23, 2004, against Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, referred to in the Judgment. 5 6. The representatives advised that, during the criminal proceedings against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and others before the Third Liquidating Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima and, currently, before the Fourth Liquidating Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, under case file No. 04-2010 or 046-2010, Martha Flores, Indira Huilca Flores and Flor Huilca Gutiérrez appeared as a civil party. They indicated that, currently, the said proceedings were examining the charges brought by the prosecution on January 21, 2013, against the presumed perpetrators and masterminds for the crime against life, body and health, aggravated homicide – murder – with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation, established in subparagraph 3 of article 108 of the Criminal Code, against Pedro Huilca Tecse, and that the respective indictment was about to be issued. In addition, they indicated that the State had not provided information on the criminal proceedings that were being processed under this case file, but rather sent information on case file No. 144-03, “which is not related to the [instant] case.” The representatives asked that the State provide information on the status of the said proceedings and observed with great concern “that they have been subject to considerable delay, because, more than 20 years after the events occurred, impunity continues to reign with regard to the execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse.” 7. The Commission observed with concern “the absence of information from the State, which is revealed by the most recent reports.” It reiterated the importance that the investigation be conducted with the required diligence so that it became an effective mechanism to overcome the situation of impunity of the facts of the case. Lastly, it considered it pertinent that the Court ask the State to present, as soon as possible, complete, detailed and recent information on the status of the criminal proceedings. 8. The Court notes that, even though more than 20 years have passed since the events of this case occurred, and more than eight years since the Judgment was handed down, a situation of impunity continues to exist with regard to the violations declared in this case. In this regard, the Court has indicated consistently in its case 5 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 60.55 to 60.57. 4