6 to Dora Ayague, the only woman among the victims. Luis Ortiz-Perea and Bertila Lozano were positively identified.”4 12. That the representatives agreed with the information submitted by the State, but pointed out that by July 19, 2008, date set by the victims' next of kin to inhume the victims' remains, the State had failed to make “the necessary arrangements with the authorities of the cemetery ‘El Ángel’ to cause the remains inhumation to be authorized and order the cleaning of the mausoleum of the victims” and that fortunately they could rely on the good will of the cemetery authorities as a last resort to proceed with the inhumation. They further pointed out that the mortal remains of the other four victims had not been located and identified and that the outcome of the examinations conducted to identify the remains exhumed in 1993 was not reported, so they considered that the State had not fully complied with this operative paragraph. In this sense, they suggested that the State should keep informing the Court “on the actions taken to fully comply with this measure of reparation.” 13. That the Commission welcomed the efforts made by the State, but regretted its lack of diligence in making the necessary arrangements for the burial of the victims' remains. Moreover, it restated to the Court that the State should be required to furnish information on the domestic coordinating measures and concrete actions taken to locate the victims' remains which are still missing. 14. That the Court highly appreciates the actions taken by the State to search for and locate the victims; in particular, it underlines the fact that the inhumation of six of them was possible. To this effect, the Court requests the State to specify the names of the victims whose remains have been inhumed, as well as those who are still to be located. Accordingly, it is imperative that the State continue with the actions aimed at locating the four missing victims, resorting to all available means to immediately resume the search for the victims and, in turn, the identification of their remains, applying an action plan and the adequate technology, for which it is essential that the State proceed to reinforce its search and identification capacity gathering the professional and technical resources that the case requires. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the State has partly complied with this obligation and urges the State to keep up search efforts according to the provisions set out in paragraph 232 of the Judgment. * * * Public act of acknowledgement of responsibility 15. That, in relation to the duty to perform, within the term of six months, a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment,) the State informed that the act was performed on October 25, 2007, at the seat of the Ministry of Justice, with the presence of the victims' next of kin, their legal representatives from APRODEH, members of other non-governmental organizations of human rights, newspapers, the radio and the television, the Ministry of Justice and other State officers. The ceremony was broadcasted on television and radio, the press media and on-line sites of many communications media. The State informed that a representative of the victims joined up with the organizers and coordinated the event planning. For this reason, the State considers that it has fully complied with operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment. 16. 4 That the representatives chose to make “no comments” on this issue. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, First Special Criminal Court, case file No. 03-2003, Judgment of April 8, 2008, para. 252.