been identified, or that the context in which the facts occurred has been taken into account.” Lastly, the Commission considered that this situation was growing worse with the passing of time, because, according to the information forwarded by the State, “one of the individuals allegedly involved in the facts that being investigated has apparently died.” Thus, it asked “the Court to require the State to present detailed and updated information on compliance with this aspect, including: (i) the specific results of the measures taken; (ii) the timetable for the measures to be taken, and (iii) the information obtained from State archives, and the use to which it will be put.” 12. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the State under the preliminary inquiry being conducted by the authorities of the ordinary system of justice; in particular, the reception of the statements of 13 possible witnesses, who include members of the armed forces. However, from the information provided by the parties, the Court notes that statements remain pending that could lead to substantial progress in determining those responsible for the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla Pacheco, and that individuals indicted in the proceedings have died as a result of the passage of time. In this regard, the Court recalls that the implementation of this measure of reparation not only involves the obligation to conduct investigations into the whereabouts of Mr. Radilla Pacheco, but also the efficient implementation, with due diligence and within a reasonable time, of investigations designed to determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities and the consequences that the law establishes, bearing in mind the systematic pattern that permitted the perpetration of grave human rights violations in this case.10 The Court emphasizes that, around 39 years have passed since Mr. Radilla Pacheco was disappeared by State agents, and therefore urges the State to take, within a reasonable time, the measures that remain pending under the preliminary inquiry. In this regard, the Court recalls that the passage of time has a directly proportional relationship to the limitation – and, in some cases, the impossibility – to obtain evidence and/or testimony, making the practice of probative measures to clarify the facts under investigation, to identify the possible authors and participants, and to determine the eventual criminal responsibilities difficult and even nugatory or ineffective. Despite this, the national authorities are not exempt from making every effort required to comply with their obligation to investigate.11 13. Nevertheless, the Court appreciates the delivery of the public version of the preliminary investigation to the representatives, in keeping with the timetable agreed with the parties, and urges the State to continue complying with this undertaking. Lastly, based on the foregoing, the Court requests the State to provide recent information that is as complete as possible on the progress made in implementing this measure of reparation. B. Obligation to continue the genuine search for, and the prompt discovery of, Mr. Radilla Pacheco or, if applicable, his mortal remains (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 14. The State indicated that “the search for the disappeared Rosendo Radilla [Pacheco] has not only been effective, but also founded and motivated by investigations carried out by the Social Agency of the Federations since 2008[, with the full agreement of the victims and, also, characterized […] by a high degree of professionalism of the experts from different disciplines and institutions […].” It also indicated that, “on October 31, 2011,          ��                                                   10 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras. 206, 215 and 222. 11 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 215. 6