informed public opinion about the evolution of the proceedings. However, this did not happen in the case of El Amparo, and it appears that this same willingness to investigate does not exist in all the cases, but rather there is “a discriminatory application of justice.” Lastly, they asked the Court to urge the State: (a) to present the timetable with the actions to be taken to advance the investigations, the dates on which these actions will be carried out, and the institution or persons in charge; (b) to undertake the necessary investigation of each of the persons indicated as perpetrators of the facts; (c) to expedite investigations to establish the masterminds behind the massacre, and (d) to summon the two survivors, family members of the victims, and representatives to inform them of the timetable and to hear their observations and suggestions. 10. The Inter-American Commission observed that, even though the State had provided information on some measures, “it has not provided information on the adoption of decisive measures or concrete steps towards compliance with the aspects ordered by the Inter-American Court in the judgment on reparations delivered almost 14 years ago.” It asked that Venezuela be required to submit the timetable of specific actions in relation to the investigation requested by the Court as soon as possible, to conduct the investigative procedures required to comply with the pending obligations, and to allow the victims to participate. 11. The Inter-American Court takes note of the information provided by the State regarding the different investigative measures that the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered during the first months of 2010. However, according to the State’s report, these measures were limited to requests for information and for expert appraisals. The Court does not have information on whether these measures were actually implemented, whether they produced the expected results and, finally, whether they resulted in any progress in the investigation into the facts of this case. This information has not been provided to the Court subsequently, despite several requests (supra having seen paragraph 7). 12. The Court also takes note of the observations of the representatives that: (a) the investigation is focused on a few individuals only and not on all those who were identified as perpetrators; (b) the State did not provide information on the progress of the investigation into the possible masterminds, and (c) unlike other cases, the State authorities have not received the victims or their family members and legal representatives. In this regard, the Court finds it necessary that Venezuela, in its next brief (infra second operative paragraph), forward information on these and other observations made by the representatives in their brief, as well as those made by the Inter-American Commission. 13. The Court recalls that in the hearing on monitoring compliance held on January 29, 2010, in this case, the State indicated that: The time has come for justice to be done […]; the delay in the start of the investigations was due to the fact that the priority [in previous years] was not to investigate this; [the State] had given priority to re-establishing social rights. […] Nevertheless, it emphasized the actual political will to start the investigations. It is true that the perpetrators have been fully identified, but time is required for the Office of the Prosecutor General to proceed with the investigations. The investigations will not be difficult because some of the evidence is already in the military jurisdiction, so that it can easily be collected and reconstructed. 4