1), the authorities in charge of the initial investigation agreed that her murder “was preceded by careful planning involving people from the area”; and that at least one police agent carried out obstructive, coercive and threatening acts in order to prevent the investigation.4 Almost three years after it delivered the judgment in this case, the Court has not received any type of information from the State to enable it to verify compliance with this obligation, which includes both the investigation into the murder of Mrs. Kawas Fernández and the obstruction of justice in relation to the corresponding facts.5 However, the Court takes into account that the representatives, after consulting the respective case file, indicated that no significant progress had been made in the investigations. Therefore, the Court reiterates to the State that it must present detailed information on: (a) The status of the existing criminal case files on the murder of Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández and the obstruction of its investigations; (b) the measures adopted to provide the agents in charge of the investigation with the necessary resources to carry out their work, as well as any measures of protection ordered, if appropriate; (c) the measures of protection adopted for the witnesses, and (d) any substantive progress made in the respective investigations and proceedings.6 12. The Court reminds the State that the obligation to comply with the Court’s decisions includes the obligation to provide information opportunely on the actions taken to this end.7 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that this aspect remains pending compliance. C. Obligation to publish certain paragraphs of the judgment in the Official Gazette and in a national newspaper with widespread circulation (tenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 13. The State advised that it had “proceeded to publish the judgment […] as ordered by the Court” in “La Gaceta, the official gazette of the Republic of Honduras,” and in “La Tribuna, a newspaper with widespread national circulation,” on September 10 and 28, 2009, respectively, and forwarded photocopies of the said publications.8 14. The representatives indicated that they “accepted” the “publication made in the Official Gazette.” However they noted that the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas had advised them of their “dissatisfaction with the publication in [���] La Tribuna newspaper” because it “does not have widespread circulation at the national level and […] is one of the newspapers with least circulation in the northern part [of the country],” where the facts of the case took place. According to the representatives, if the publication of the judgment is not made “widely in a newspaper that is read in that region, […] this measure of reparation will be absolutely ineffective.” Therefore, they asked the Court to order that the judgment be published again “in a national newspaper which has an impact in the northern part of Honduras,” and sent the Court the pertinent parts of “a 2006 study by an American company, Urban & Associates Inc., on the consumer patterns and coverage of the media in Honduras,” together with a survey conducted by researchers of the Jesuit Reflection, 4 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernámdez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paras. 84, 86 and 87 5 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernámdez v. Honduras, supra note 4, para. 191. 6 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernámdez v. Honduras, supra note 4, para. 195. 7 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, supra note 2, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. La Gaceta, official gazette of the Republic of Honduras of September 10, 2009 (file of monitoring compliance, tome I, folio 8) and pages of La Tribuna newspaper of September 28, 2009 (file of monitoring compliance, tome I, folio 58 to 63). 4