4 8. That the Court values the usefulness of the hearing held to supervise the pending matters regarding compliance in this case. * * * 9. That as regards to all the necessary actions to be taken, in keeping with the judicial guarantees and within a reasonable time, in order to identify, judge and, if applicable, punish everyone responsible for the violations against the victims in this case (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment), the State highlighted that “when this tragedy occurred in 1992, [...] prosecutor 101 of the Attorney’s Office of the Metropolitan area of Caracas filed the corresponding claim before the Judiciary and the investigation was ordered by the 29th Control Court. Such investigation was extremely light, unsystematic, did not follow a criminal logical proceeding regarding the scene of the crime, no experts’ testimonies were taken as necessary, no bullet samples were taken, the investigation was not serious as the case deserved it.” However, the State informed that the Attorney’s Office later “carried out several proceedings to complete the investigation, such as listing the arms, the records of the various official departments involved somehow with the facts[...and] tracing the individuals who could or might, according to the minutes drawn, provide some other significant elements.” Thus, “[t]he Attorney’s Office has been based on high level technical and scientific expertise, including specialists from various areas of criminalistics and criminology, reinforcing the Attorney’s work in this case analyzing coherently all the proceedings carried out until then.” The State concluded pointing out that the investigation continues “directed by a prosecutor with full competence managing minutes to determine any liabilities applicable”, without losing sight that this is a fact that is “difficult to prove, since the active subject [...] tries to hide away the consequences of his wrongdoing and the criminal characteristics of his proceedings.” 10. That the representatives made reference to “the latest revision [of September 29, 2009] by the 30th Attorney’s Office Fully Competent at National level [of] file No[.] F30NN0008-2008 […], whereby it was evidenced that in 2008 and during 2009 no pertinent and relevant investigation was conducted to identify those responsible duly recording it in the file of this case.” “[T]here is no trial filed and, least of all, no one has been punished. All cases are still at the initial stage of the judicial process (investigative stage) so this case remains absolutely unpunished.” For the representatives, “the State [has] not submit[ted] any detailed information about the results obtained in the various proceedings and expert’s reports to which it refers and to what extent they have contributed to advance in the investigation.” Furthermore, they affirmed that they have had many difficulties to review the file, which hinders finding out “what the investigation lines are, what contribution may be made to the relation [they] have with the next of kin [and] know, for example, whether the list of authorities at that time had been questioned.” According to the representatives, the State has pointed out “that there have been weaknesses in the file, lack of preliminary investigation, lines of investigation that were not followed, [which] points out certain responsibilities that should have been determined in the case of the prosecutors, the judges, those in charge of the investigation but did not investigate[,] contributing to the consolidation of impunity in a case that is undoubtedly emblematic in the history of Venezuela.” Due to all this, the representatives “request[ed] the […] Court to require Venezuela, within three (3) months, to submit the certified copies of file […] No[.] F30NNof Human Rights of September 22, 2005, considering clause 7; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 2, considering clause 7, and Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, considering clause 7.