-10a) regarding the obligation to investigate, it is concerned with the fact that no effective action has been carried out in compliance with that established in the Judgment. That informed by the State caught its attention in the sense that “the actions and decisions of the Military Criminal Justice could not be analyzed in relation with the juridical situation of the former soldiers investigated,” since this is a matter established in the Judgment. The Court considered it convenient to determine certain requirements that the investigation must have, such as that it be carried out within a reasonable period of time, that it be effective in the investigation and punishment of all the perpetrators of the facts, that it be carried out through ordinary criminal courts, that measures that prevent the criminal persecution or that suppress the effects of the conviction not be applied, and that the results be disseminated. There is not a single element in the information provided by the State that leads to the conclusion that these requirements are being complied with. “The State’s actions of starting the proceedings do not seem to correspond with the intensity of the procedural activity one could expect after a year of activities of seeking justice;” b) regarding the search for the mortal remains, it considers that the measures referred to by the State do not correspond to the progress that could be reasonably “expected after a year of activity;” c) regarding the establishment of the conditions for the return of the next of kin of Mr. Flores Contreras, an efficient and effective investigation is the ideal measure to eradicate the risk of an irreparable damage, but it is not the only one. It regrets the absence in the state’s report of the studies that specify the characteristics of risk to which this family would be subject, as well as a technical proposal to face said risk; d) regarding the erection of a monument in memory of the victims, it verified the absolute disagreement of the next of kin of the victims with the manner chosen to commemorate their loved ones. It considers that it will be difficult for them to consider the mentioned monument as a measure of reparation; e) regarding the commemorative plaque, neither the State nor the representatives referred to this obligation. It understands that it is complementary to that of the erection of the monument, reason for which its compliance would be pending until the controversy over the latter is solved; f) regarding the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility, it takes note that the execution of this measure has not satisfied the majority of the next of kin of the victims. “It deeply regrets that this is the case, because it acknowledges important gestures and valuable practices in the act carried out that would have deserved a better future.” It verified that the organization was carried out with very little anticipation to its actual realization. It does not consider it prudent that the bodies of the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights give the acts of constriction a specific design; however, there is an obligation to verify if the execution of the measure of reparation was made in such a way that, according to logic and experience, it propitiate the full compliance of the obligations. “[T]he Commission considers that the current status of this obligation is of compliance regarding two of the victims, and pending with regard to the other seventeen;”