4 9. That through notes sent by the Secretariat of the Court, following the President’s instructions, (supra Having Seen clause No. 3), the State was reminded of its obligation to inform of the measures adopted to comply with the Judgment. 10. That after more than 3 years of the passing of the Judgment in the instant case, the State has submitted, with delay, only one report on compliance. * * * 11. That as regards the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the declared violations (Operative Paragraph No. 7 of the Judgment), the State reported that on July 3, 2007, the Attorney General’s Office formally filed a criminal complaint against 12 persons allegedly responsible for crimes against humanity (forced disappearance) and against public peace (unlawful association to commit a crime). 12. That the representatives alleged that “[t]he term for the preliminary investigations stage has expired; therefore, the case record has been sent to the First Special AntiCorruption Criminal Court [...], which, in turn, through the order of December 11, 2008, [sent] the case record to the Attorney General’s Office to render an opinion in accordance with its functions”. 13. That the Commission warned that, “the information provided is not thorough enough to reveal the investigation procedures performed, the progress made thereon, the stage of proceedings, the procedural status of defendants or the potential date of trial”. 14. That the information provided by the parties reflects that the State has progressed significantly on the related investigations and proceedings, even though these have not concluded yet. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that the State should submit thorough information regarding any new measures implemented to comply with this point. * * * 15. That as to the search for and finding of the mortal remains of Santiago GómezPalomino and the delivery thereof to his relatives (Operative Paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment), the State only indicated that its competent authorities "are carrying out an investigation”. 16. That in view of the lack of information regarding compliance with this point, the Court finds that the State should provide more details on the procedures performed to locate the remains of the victim. * * * 17. That as regards the publication of the Judgment (Operative Paragraph No. 9 thereof), the State indicated that on February 10, 2006, publication of the appropriate parts of the Judgment in the Official Gazette was ordered, “publication in another nationwide circulation newspaper still pending”. 18. That the representatives confirmed that on February 12, 2006, the Judgment was published in the Official Gazette and, therefore, the representatives affirmed that, “the State of Peru complied with its obligation to perform such publication before the expiration of the term granted by the Court”. Moreover, they alleged that the term for publication in another nationwide circulation newspaper has expired “long ago”.