from six individuals, among whom were two who were suspected of having committed the crime. In addition, the State advised that the Public Prosecutor’s office had ordered that the investigation be concluded urgently. 12. The representatives reported that, although 12 years had elapsed since Mr. Garibaldi’s murder, the authors had not yet been identified and punished. They also emphasized that, in its report on compliance with the judgment, Brazil had “not made any recent reference to the progress of the police inquiry, [merely] forwarding a copy of the testimony rendered in May 2009, [as a result] of the procedures authorized by the competent proceedings on April 20, 2009.” They also indicated that, “based on the documents presented, almost two years have passed without the Brazilian State reporting any progress in the police investigation” and “by failing to provide specific information in that regard, Brazil is ignoring or disregarding the unjustified delay and continues to violate the right to due process of law.” As a result of telephone calls made to the Loanda Police Headquarters, the representatives were informed that the police investigation had been sent to the Judiciary on November 16, 2010, and had been returned to the Police Headquarters on November 20, 2010, to comply with a request from the Public Prosecutor’s office: the inclusion of Ailton Lobato’s death certificate in the case file. Lastly, they stated that this represents “a total disregard of compliance with the [measure of reparation ordered by the Court] on the part of the [State],” and asked the Court to “require the State […] to provide satisfactory information on compliance with [this] operative paragraphs.” 13. The Inter-American Court observes that the procedures conducted in the investigation of the facts included taking testimony from four witnesses and one possible guilty party, which could make a positive contribution to the progress of the proceedings. However, the State’s failure to provide information must be noted; the only document that has referred to this aspect is the “Detailed report of the investigation: Sétimo Garibaldi case” of the Public Prosecutor’s office dated May 10, 2010, more than one year after the judgment had been handed down and 12 years after the victims’ death. Furthermore, the Court observes that the State has advised that the procedures requested by the Public Prosecutor’s office have not been completed. 14. The Court appreciates the effort of the representatives to seek recent information on the investigation and present it to the Court. However, despite the relevance of the information obtained by the representatives by telephone calls to the Loanda Police Headquarters, this does not obviate the State’s responsibility to forward the Court detailed up-to-date information on compliance with the judgment. 15. Lastly, the Court recalls that more than 12 years have passed since Sétimo Garibaldi’s death, and no substantial progress has been made towards clarifying the facts and identifying and, as appropriate, punishing those responsible. Consequently, Brazil must adopt the necessary measures and actions to ensure full and effective compliance with this measure of reparation. In addition, within the time frame indicated in the third operative paragraph of this order, it must forward complete and detailed information on compliance with this obligation. c) Regarding the obligation to compensate the damage and reimburse costs and expenses