"double jeopardy for the same offense."6 However, during the private hearing, the State expressed its willingness to comply with this measure and reported that, according to a report issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, "the Paraguayan State must comply with the operative paragraph [, so it has been agreed] to request that the Public Ministry open an investigation into torture against "unnamed persons" in events which occurred on December 31, 1989." At the same time, it reaffirmed that "it is possible to reopen the case into [those people who were] already sentenced on charges of [culpable homicide] and acquitted [respectively]" since the inquiry was driven by homicide and torture. 7. Representatives and the Commission agreed that more information is needed regarding the action being initiated before the Public Ministry. The Commission also valued the change in the State's position but noted that "the Court has already ordered the reopening of the investigation [...] because [...] the investigation into the causes of death did not meet the minimum standards of diligence to determine whether or not an act of torture had been committed" and manifested that no State may resort to the constant invocation of domestic law vis-a-vis the obligations set forth in the Judgment. Finally, the representatives reiterated that, in its Judgment, the Court ruled to identify, prosecute and, when applicable, punish those responsible for all violations were committed against Gerardo Vargas Areco, not just those violations that can still be investigated under domestic law. 8. Firstly, it is important to remember that in its Judgment on merits, reparations and costs (supra Having Seen 1), this Court considered that "the investigation into the extrajudicial execution of Gerardo Vargas Areco, and into his alleged torture, was not carried out effectively and fully."7 Indeed, the Court determined that "the State did not conduct an investigation that made it possible to establish whether the child was tortured or suffered other ill-treatment."8Therefore, it ordered the State "to undertake, in full compliance with judicial guarantees and within a reasonable time period, [...] the actions necessary to identify, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the violations committed in this case."9 9. The information provided it becomes apparent that more than 20 years after the extrajudicial execution of the child Vargas Areco and four years after the notification of the Judgment under supervision, there has been no progress with the implementation of this reparation measure and, therefore, the partial impunity continues to affect the next-of-kin of the child Vargas Areco. Therefore, the will to comply expressed by the State during a private audience is essential, since the elimination of impunity by all legal means available constitutes a fundamental element to eradicate extrajudicial killings, torture and other crimes.10 SeeCase of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance withJudgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 20, 2010, Considering Clause six. 7 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 87. 8 Cf. Caso Vargas Areco, supra note 7, para. 154. 9 10 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 7, operative paragraph nine. Cf. Case of the "Street Children" (Villagran Morales et al.) v. Guatemala Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause twenty one. See also, Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia.Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 299; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 137, Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 7, para. 81.