4 10. That the representatives mentioned that the petition filed with the National Justice Council regarding the excess in the term of the criminal action was merely bureaucratic. Furthermore, the representatives alleged that the State has not discussed the matter with them or the relatives of the victim and that the absence of “participation mechanisms and the lack of transparency in the acts of the authorities of Brazil in the instant case have prevented the representatives from […] fully exercising their right and duty to monitor and cooperate upon compliance with this [J]udgment”. As an example, the representatives indicated that they were not invited to participate in the aforementioned meetings of September, 22, 2008. As regards the criminal action, they confirmed that on June 29, 2009, almost ten years after the death of Damião Ximenes-Lopes, a first instance judgment was rendered. That decision is not conclusive; therefore, the State has not yet complied with Operative Paragraph No. 6 of the Judgment. They alleged that instead of analyzing the existence of an excess in the term elapsed from the filing of the criminal action within the domestic jurisdiction, as already set forth in the Judgment, the State should adopt all measures necessary to avoid subsequent delays in the course of proceedings. As to the civil action, they stated that the passing of the first instance judgment on June 27, 2008, reflects that progress was made, notwithstanding the fact that on July 25, 2008, one of the respondents filed a motion known as Embargo de Declaração against the decision, which is still pending resolution. 11. That the Inter-American Commission noted the progress made regarding the criminal action and the issuance of the first instance judgment, and stated that it awaited updated information on the conclusion of proceedings and compliance with the decision. Moreover, the Commission noted the reports of the representatives regarding the civil action. Lastly, it indicated that three years have elapsed since the Judgment was rendered, and the State should adopt measures to remove the obstacles that keep delaying compliance with the orders of the Court. 12. That the Inter-American Court appreciates the performance by the State of various measures adopted to boost criminal proceedings to investigate the death of Damião Ximenes-Lopes, in order to solve the case as soon as practicable. 13. That moreover, the Court notes that on June 29, 2009, a criminal judgment regarding the events of the instant case was rendered in the first instance. Such judgment declared that Damião Ximenes-Lopes “was a victim of mistreatment, experiencing various injuries resulting from the omissions [by defendants, who worked as head nurse, nursing assistants, physician and owner of] Casa de Reposo Guararapes, which did not provide the necessary care [to the victim]”. That notwithstanding, given that there exists the possibility that motions may be filed against the aforementioned decision, Brazil should submit in its first brief thorough and updated information on the status of criminal proceedings. 14. That as to the allegations of the representatives in the sense that they have not participated in discussions with the State or meetings for monitoring compliance with judgment in the instant case, the Court does not find elements to prove that the representatives revealed to the State their interest in holding a meeting, or that their request for such meeting was denied or not answered. Furthermore, in the process for monitoring compliance with the Judgment, the parties have the chance to examine the progress made through timely submission by the Court of the information requested by the State. Hence, it is possible to monitor and make any adequate comments through the observations that the representatives and the Inter-American Commission should