5 008-2008 […] in order to check the present status of the investigations.” Likewise, the representatives requested that the Court should urge Venezuela, and particularly the Attorney’s Office, to complete “the [investigations] in a satisfactory manner, […] identifying those allegedly responsible for such violations and taking them before the competent jurisdictional bodies within a reasonable time.” 11. That “the lack of effective measures adopted to carry out a serious investigation of the facts that occurred [since] the only proceedings have been […] of an administrative nature is a reason for concern” for the Commission. Considering that “there are inconsistencies between the information provided by the State and by the representatives regarding the proceedings carried out, the Commission [requested that the Court should require the State] copies of the proceedings made after issuing the Judgment. Likewise, although the [Commission pointed out] that, it understands the complex situation alleged by the State, it consider[ed] that the weaknesses and defaults by the previous authorities are not acceptable pretexts not to proceed with the due diligence at this stage.” 12. That over three years ago, during the public hearing held about this case on April 4, 2006, the State recognized its liabilities and expressed the following, inter alia: The Venezuelan State has come today to this hearing to express its acknowledgement of the facts, [...] to honor the memory of those who died, to acknowledge the truth and to seek justice. The State considers that it is its obligation to acknowledge all the facts as charged. This is a formal admission6. Likewise, in such hearing, the State indicated that “there is no reserve whatsoever [in the admission], since the detainees were under [its] custody”7. Furthermore, when addressing the victims in such hearing, the State pointed out that [The State] deeply [...] regrets all the vicissitudes that might have occurred and the pain you have endured during these years [...] because you spent thirteen years waiting for justice to be done. On this day, [...] the Venezuelan State is willing to accept all the allegations that have been made and acknowledge and repair all the pain that you have suffered8. Lastly, in the brief presented by the State during such public hearing, Venezuela pointed out that: [...] although after the events occurred, the competent local authorities started an investigation, up to this date there have not been any precise results that may lead to establish the identity of those responsible for the crimes, nor the manner in which the events occurred; there also exists a delay which the State acknowledges and regrets[9.] 13. That based on the above and on the evidence, this Court declared in the merit Judgment that the actions carried out by the Venezuelan authorities during the investigation of the facts had not been sufficient and the Court concluded that, “impunity has continued for over thirteen years after the events in this case.”10 6 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. V. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merit, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. C Series No. 150, para. 40. 7 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al., supra note 6, para. 41. 8 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al., supra note 6, para. 42. 9 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al., supra note 6, para. 45. 10 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al., supra note 6, para. 60(29) and 137.