9 concern expressed by the representatives of the victim’s next of kin and by the Inter-American Commission before the fact that the criminal action initiated against the alleged responsible of the forced disappearance of the victim in the instant case has been assigned to a court for civil and commercial matters and not to a court in criminal law. Accordingly, it is up to the State to indicate the ground, according to the Bolivian domestic legislation, for the assignment of a case to a Court in civil and commercial matters when dealing with a criminal case and to elucidate on the way such proceedings respect the minimum procedural guarantees in criminal matter enshrined in the American Convention. 16. That, the timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each one of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case.7 17. That the Court deems vital that the State submit up to date information on the following aspects pending compliance: a) Obligation to “make use of all the necessary resources to locate the mortal rests of the victim and deliver them to his next of kin, in order for his family to offer a proper burial” (operative paragraph one and paragraphs 115 and 117 of the Judgment on the reparations and legal costs of February 27, 2002) and b) Investigation, identification and, if applicable, punishment of the responsible of the injurious facts of the instant case (operative paragraph three and paragraphs 109 to 111 of the Judgment on the reparations and legal costs of February 27, 2002). 18. That the Court will consider the general status of the compliance with the Judgment on the reparations and legal costs of February 27, 2002 once it is provided with the corresponding information on the aspect pending compliance of such Judgment. THEREFORE: 7 Cf. Case of Barrios-Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; Considering clause seven; Case of Garcia-Asto and Ramirez-Rojas v. Peru, supra note 1; Considering clause eight; Case of Gómez-Palomino v. Peru, Monitoring Compliance with Judgments. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering Clause five.