proceedings, “the necessary measures continue to be taken in order to prove the probable responsibility of the other members of the military services who were denounced.” In this regard, it advised that, “in order to identify the individuals who took part in the facts and to prove the crime of forced disappearance of persons, in June and August 2012, statements were taken from [four] individuals who, at the time of the events, worked in the 27th military zone in the state of Guerrero.” The State also indicated that “the Public Prosecution Service took the statement of one witness […] who, at the time of the events, […] was able to interview a General from the Atoyac de Álvarez Barracks, Guerrero, and who indicated that during their meeting he noted that, on a shelf, there were files that apparently belonged to those detained.” 8. The State also indicated that “the Investigations Coordination Bureau of the [Prosecutor General’s Office had] requested [the] service records of eight members of the Army […] so as to be able to summon them to appear before the Social Agency of the Federation.” According to the State, these soldiers were questioned regarding “the mass or clandestine graves and places where the deceased persons were buried.” In addition, it advised that “plans are underway to continue taking statements from retired soldiers who had command functions in the 1970s and who were attached to the 27th Military Zone […].” 9. Lastly, regarding the victims’ access to the case file of the proceedings underway for the facts of the case, Mexico advised that “the representatives of the victims [had] full access and legal standing in the investigation of the facts, participating with the Public Prosecution Service as additional parties” and, also, that it had complied with the “undertaking made to the victims […] to provide them with copies of the public version of the preliminary inquiry on a monthly basis,” delivering these in keeping with a timetable established with the representatives. Also, “in compliance [with the] commitment made during the hearing on monitoring compliance held on June 22, 2012,” before the InterAmerican Court, the State forwarded “the digitized public version of the volumes of the preliminary hearing […] that have been handed over to the next of kin of Mr. Radilla Pacheco”. 10. The representatives appreciated “that the State […] had taken the initiative to make […] a more complete examination of the documentation and to receive testimony, mainly from individuals who were soldiers posted in the zone of conflict where […] the facts occurred that resulted in the disappearance of [Mr.] Radilla Pacheco.” However, they observed that “many of the people indicated as participants in the facts […] are already deceased, [and that …] it is regrettable that the Mexican authorities have taken so much time to further the investigations,” because this has meant that “many lines of investigation have evaporated with the passage of time […].” The representatives also indicated that the lines of investigation followed by the State have not taken into account the systematic pattern surrounding the facts of the disappearance of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, as ordered in the Judgment. Thus, they underscored that, the probable perpetrators of the facts have still not been identified, and asked the Court to require the State to present more detailed information on the preliminary inquiry. Nevertheless, the representatives indicated their agreement regarding “the way in which [the State …] has been complying” with the regular delivery of the file of the preliminary inquiry. 11. The Commission expressed its “concern [owing to] the State’s failure to present complete and detailed information on the steps taken in the preliminary inquiry.” It also indicated that, more than “three years after the Judgment was handed down […] and almost forty years after the facts occurred, there is no evidence of any substantial progress in the investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla Pacheco. In addition, it stated that “there is no evidence that those presumably responsible for the victim’s disappearance have 5