8 [...]. Second, evidence that could have been very important for the due clarification of the homicides was not ordered, practiced or evaluated [...]. 31. That as regards to the manner to progress on the investigation of the events, the State reported that “the investigation will be jointly promoted with the Attorney General’s Office” and that meeting were held with CEJIL and “an agreement was reached to establish spaces for debate and discussion regarding the different orders of the Court”. Particular, the State indicated that “the Committees to Forster Investigations were organized”, to “invite the members of the Attorney General’s Office, the Ministry of the Interior and other institutions that could have any involvement in these cases”. According to the State, the purpose of those Committees is “to promote the orders of the Court” and “thus, achieve progress in compliance”. 32. That representatives held that they had met with the State “given their concern for widespread impunity” and that CEJIL proposed to the State the possibility of defining spaces for debate “to make judicial agents aware of their obligation to comply with the Judgments of the Court”. The representatives further established that such agreement “includes gathering with judicial agents to make them aware of the principles of [the] Court”, but “the obligation to define a plan as to how to develop the investigations falls under the exclusive and sole responsibility of the State”. 33. That the Commission stated that it appreciates “the readiness of the State” and “it considers that joint work with the Attorney general’s Office that considers the participation of the representatives of the victims could constitute an important step”. In that regard, the Commission highlighted two specific issues: first, it would be convenient "to rely on a schedule of activities to reopen this investigation and progress on specific measures"; and, second, it would be necessary to define a comprehensive plan for investigation that covers all substantive and operative aspects of the Court’s decisions on the merits and reparations”. 34. That the Court appreciates the efforts recently made by the State to organize “Committees to Foster Investigations” and calls upon the parties to work restlessly in these spaces for debate to achieve a better understanding of the Judgments of the Court by State officers and, hence, reach effective compliance with those Judgments. In turn, the Court expects that these Committees will serve as starting points to open new possibilities for progressing and concluding investigations of the events in the instant case. That notwithstanding, the Court considers necessary to emphasize that this new State initiative should not be used to delay investigations even more or to justify any failure to investigate by the State, since official authorities have the obligation to follow all stages of the investigation process as specified in this Order, irrespective of the existence of those Committees. 35. That notwithstanding the foregoing, after the passing of the Judgment on the merits and the Judgment on reparations and costs, the State has not submitted to the Court any new information to prove that significant progress was made regarding the investigation of the events and the search for and eventual punishment of those responsible. The State has repeatedly made reference to the procedures that this Court has declared as violations of the human rights of the victims. Moreover, the allegations made by the State at the private hearing, in the sense that the investigations and the criminal proceedings in which the Court has already rendered a decision were carried out in accordance with the law and the guarantee of due legal process, are clearly contradictory to the findings of this Court as contained in the Judgments.