4 versions; b) a writ was issued to the National Director of Anti-Narcotics requesting that he certify the names of the police officers involved in the arrest of Mr. Daniel David Tibi (hereinafter “Daniel Tibi” or “Mr. Tibi”); c) a writ was issued to the National Rehabilitation Department requesting that they submit the names of the correction officers who worked on the days when Mr. Tibi was in custody, and d) Mr. Tibi was requested to submit the original copies of the medical records or legal medical exams. The State added that on April 30, 2010, through a notification sent from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the Attorney General’s Office, the process to investigate and punish those responsible was reactivated, and several steps were ordered within preliminary inquiry 3064-05. Lastly, the State reported that Mr. Tibi granted a special proxy to David Cordero Heredia of the Human Rights Clinic of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Ecuador to legally represent him in Ecuador. 7. With regards to this operative paragraph of the Judgment, the representatives noted that the State reported on several steps taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, but did not indicate the dates on which they were performed or the actions carried out afterwards to move forth with the investigations. In addition, they indicated that Mr. Tibi had not received any communication regarding the presentation of the medical records before the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the contrary of that indicated by the State. They expressed that it is inconceivable that the investigations are still in a preliminary phase and that the State fails to provide more detailed information on the progress therein, especially considering that during the proceeding before the Court, significant evidence was presented regarding the existence of the crime, its circumstances, and the alleged perpetrators. Therefore, the representatives expressed the need to request information on the criminal actions initiated against Judge Ángel Rubio and the status of compliance with the punishment imposed on him, as well as on the advances with the investigation and the punishment of those responsible for the violations committed. They added that although the State reported a series of steps for preliminary investigation 3064-05, it has not indicated whether it has actually carried them out or reported the results. Lastly, they indicated that Mr. Tibi granted a proxy to Mr. David Cordero Heredia, so that he could be represented in said preliminary inquiry 3064-05. 8. In relation to the above, the Commission observed that the State did not submit detailed information in order to verify the status of the investigation, the competent authorities hearing them, the persons being investigated for their alleged participation in the facts, or the punishments imposed in the criminal proceeding for the facts of the case in question. The Commission deemed it necessary that information be submitted regarding the steps taken in the investigation following issuance of the Judgment, as well as detailed information on the measures adopted by the State to comply with the obligation to prosecute and punish those responsible. 9. Based on the observations made by the representatives and the Commission, as well as that expressed by the State, the Court takes cognizance of the steps taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the meeting they held with the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to coordinate the investigation and possible punishment of those responsible for the human rights violations in the instant case. However, to assess the state of compliance of Operative Paragraph 10, the Court deems it necessary that the State report on the outcome of the action and steps taken and on the recent progress made in the investigation of the facts. B) Regarding the obligation to publish the Proven Facts and the Operative Paragraphs of the Judgment in a widely circulated French newspaper, as well as a statement of acknowledgment of international responsibility apologizing to Mr. Tibi and the other victims (Operative Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Judgment)