5 determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities, and that said police unit informed on July 23, 2008 that “several individuals had been located and identified”; and d) on June 25, 2008 it requested the Ministry of Defense to “elaborate on the information related to the Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre” but no response has been obtained yet. Additionally, it stated that it will continue reporting to the Court on the progress of the investigations. 8. That the representatives observed, with regards the State’s reports on operative paragraph one of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1), that “there is serious inactivity in the investigation of this massacre. [T]he report only refers to steps aimed at identifying the victims and determining their existence, […] as well as locating the original anthropological forensic report which should be held by the Government Attorney’s office.” They added that the aforementioned report indicated that “in their records there are no […] steps performed to identify the patrol members and military officers who participated in the massacre [, and] the information of the location of the two individuals identified thus far is not included.” Taking into account this “unjustified delay” by the State, the representatives affirmed that “the inexistent advance with regards to the individualization of those responsible and their inclusion into the corresponding proceedings cannot be justified in any manner.” 9. That with regards to the obligation to investigate the facts, in its observations the Commission expressed its “concern regarding […] the lack of efficient acts of compliance with the obligation to investigate” and pointed out that “more than four years later […], there have been no changes in the situation verified by the Court in the procedure on the merits of the case.” It reiterated that “the information presented by the State shows that there are no efficient acts of compliance with the obligation to investigate. In this regard, more than five years after the judgment was delivered, the Commission observes that there have been no changes to the situation that the Court verified in the merits proceeding […and that] obtaining justice is essential to mitigate the damage; hence, it is fundamental for the State to adopt measures to obtain it as soon as possible.” Finally, it requested for the State to be required to report specifically on “the current status of the investigations, the competent authorities who are working on those investigations, the individuals who are currently being investigated for alleged perpetration and/or masterminding of the events, and the sanctions that have been imposed.” 10. That although the State has manifested that the Attorney General’s Office has performed several investigations, the representatives and the Commission have expressed the contrary. In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that the investigation of the facts does not yet comply with what was ordered in the Judgment (operative paragraph one of the Judgment on Reparations, and paragraphs 94 to 99 of that Judgment) with regards to achieving an effective investigation, identification, and possible punishment of the perpetrators of the Massacre. Consequently, the Court deems necessary for the State to submit clear, detailed, and updated information regarding the progress of the investigation, particularly with regards to: a) the authority in charge of the investigation and its identification number; b) the current status of the proceeding on those individuals “located and identified” as allegedly responsible for participating in the Plan de Sánchez Massacre; and c) a list of the next steps to be taken to prosecute, and if applicable, to punish those responsible. Additionally, the representatives and the Commission must present their observations accordingly. Once this information is received, the Court will assess the status of compliance with operative paragraph one of that Judgment. * * *