5 and deems that the State has fully complied with operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment. * * * 18. As to the duty to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in the instant case, and identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment), the State “admit[ted] that there has been a delay in the investigation of the facts". It pointed out that in 2009, the State "continued conducting preliminary proceedings, taking the preliminary examination statements of [four alleged responsible], legal aid […] was sent to the United States of America [to] take [the] preliminary examination statement of Manuel Antonio Noriega and four affidavits were taken from [another three alleged responsible]”. The State further alleged that on March 8, 2010, “a criminal action was initiated against the defendants”, that the case is being tried by “the Second Superior Tribunal of Justice” and that “the corresponding ordinary hearing has been convened for July 7, 2010.” Moreover, the State emphasized that “the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared that the fact under study is a non-extinguishable crime”. Furthermore, the State indicated that “the next-of-kin of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal […] had had access to the case file of the proceeding, [had been] listened to and, by means of […] affidavits, had presented petitions that have been solved; in addition, they were notified of the transfer of the proceedings to the Second Superior Tribunal of Justice [and] of the order to prosecute of said court”. The State committed to forward “daily reports regarding the procedures and progress made in the criminal action, as well as the judgments or resolutions issued by the corresponding judicial instances”. 19. The representatives indicated that the “State only presents lists of proceedings conducted [without] specifying the existence of a line of investigation […] to explain the relationship between the different steps [taken]". According to the representatives, “the information presented does not allow establishing the existence of the real progress made in the determination of what truly happened". Moreover, they pointed out that “the State did not adopt any method to constantly inform the Portugal family of what kind of steps are being taken" and that "they were only notified of two acts, including the summons to trial", which did not include "other violations that were determined by the Court". Furthermore, “they are unfamiliar with any investigation conducted regarding other alleged responsible for the facts” and they consider that “most of the procedures informed [by the State] are [those] that were brought before the Court during the proceedings of the merits of the case". According to Mrs. Patria Portugal, “[she] was the one who expedited the proceeding all these years, not the State" and "it is thanks to [her and her family], because they told this to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, why each one of [the] people had been convened to render a statement”. 20. The Commission “consider[ed] that it was necessary to effectively administer justice in this case within a reasonable term, in light of the excessive delay, which has been admitted by the State and acknowledged by the Court in its Judgment". To this end, it emphasized that “the expediting of the proceedings by the Portugal family" has been a constant in the investigation. 21. In this respect, the Tribunal has held in its case-law that according to the obligation to guarantee contained in article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to avoid and fight impunity, which has been defined by the Court as “the overall failure to investigate, search, arrest, prosecute and convict those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention”6. Concerning this matter, 6 See Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C, Nº 37, para. 173; Case of El Amparo, supra note 2, considering clause eighteen; and Case of