9 36. That the State completely failed to report on the measures adopted in the domestic jurisdiction to guarantee compliance with the obligation to investigate the facts and, if appropriate, to punish those responsible therefor, as provided for in Operative Paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment on reparations. 37. That the violations declared in the instant case remain entirely unpunished as found by the Court more that 9 years ago in its Judgment on the merits, and after nearly 18 years of the events. This situation forces the Court to remind Guatemala that the State has specific obligations in accordance with the American Convention, particularly regarding Articles 67 and 68 thereof; therefore, the State shall fully and promptly fulfill its obligation to investigate the events of the instant case and to adopt any domestic law provisions necessary to guarantee the performance of this obligation, and to report to the Court, within the term set forth in the operative paragraphs of this Order, on any measures adopted to that effect as from notice of this Order. In particular, the State shall report on any measures adopted to: (a) identify those responsible for the acts of torture and abduction of the victims; (b) identify all those responsible for the murders perpetrated, (c) adjust its domestic legislation to the international standards against impunity and effective and prompt investigation of extra-judicial, arbitrary and summary executions, and acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 38. That similarly, the State shall report on the measures adopted to redress or cure the defects declared by the Court in paragraph 232 of the Judgment on the merits, regarding: (a) the reevaluation of the testimony of “the witness who stated that she had been submitted to abduction and ill-treatment similar to those suffered by the four youths in the instant case”; (b) the reevaluation of the testimonies that were declared to be “irrelevant” without any explanation, although they provided revealing elements about the way in which the facts occurred and contributed to identify those responsible; (c) the reevaluation of the report resulting from the police investigation ordered by the judges to support judicial proceedings, which was set aside upon considering that it did not constitute “sufficient evidence”, where it was stated that the perpetrators of the murder were the two police officers identified by the witnesses; (d) the reevaluation of the statement by the witness who worked for the welfare of the “street children”; e) the reevaluation of certain witnesses - whose testimony was received many months after the events had occurred – on the circumstances at the time when the events occurred, which were entirely rejected although they provided revealing information on other aspects of the events under investigation that were consistent and concurring; and (f) the reevaluation of the ballistic test contained in the case record, according to which the bullet found near the body of Anstraum Aman Villagrán-Morales had been fired by the arm assigned to one of the accused police officers.