3 established in the Judgment delivered on November 20, 2007. Such obligation includes the duty the State has to report on the measures adopted in order to comply with the decisions in the above mentioned Judgment. The timely observance of the obligation the State has to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the latter is of the essence in order to assess the status of compliance with all of the Judgments.3 * * * 6. At the public hearing, the State expressed it regretted the unfounded suspicions the members of the Garcia Prieto Giralt family had had to suffer and it retracted them, for which reason it asked the representatives to transmit its apologies to the Garcia Prieto Giralt family. Furthermore, the State underscored “the unremitting struggle by Mrs. Gloria Giralt de Garcia Prieto and Mr. Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hirlemann, who have had to face numerous abuses, refusals of protection and omissions by State officials. The integrity, braveness, effort and tenacity of the Garcia Prieto Giralt family members have become a commendable example for many other families who have been victims of similar crimes in El Salvador”. In such respect, the representatives received the apologies by the State, and undertook to transmit them to the Garcia Prieto family. Lastly, the Commission set much store by the expressions the State made. * * * 7. With reference to operative paragraph number five in the Judgment wherein the obligation of the State to bring to a proper conclusion the pending investigation into the homicide of Ramón Mauricio Garcia Prieto and into the threats and the harassment suffered by Mr. José Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hirlemann and Mrs. Gloria Giralt de Garcia Prieto (supra Having Seen Clause Number 1) is established, during the public hearing the State admitted that there had not been enough effective and earnest progress in the criminal investigations to find the instigators and perpetrators in the case of the murder of Ramón Mauricio Garcia Prieto Giralt, nor in the investigation into the threats and into the acts of intimidation or of coercion his family suffered. However, it pointed out that several steps had been taken in the investigation during the last quarter in the year 2009, but that there were still more to be taken for the purpose of identifying the instigators of the homicide, as well as those responsible for the threats and for the acts of harassment. In such sense, it stated that it was prepared to institute such domestic procedures as may be necessary in order to undertake the new and determined efforts which will further progress in the investigations. 8. In the course of the public hearing, the representatives pointed out that although other perpetrators were convicted, the alleged instigator has not yet been convicted, in spite of the clues filed with the Fiscalía General de la República [Office of the Attorney General for the Republic]. They added that specific steps the State had not taken in the course of the investigations were established in the Judgment, on which grounds they requested the Court to call upon the State to adopt the measures whereby it would be effectively complying with its obligation. 3 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause Number Five; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 19, 2009, Considering Clause Number Seven; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Seven.