7 specified time limit and with specific, updated, detailed and factual information on the issues to which this obligation refers.22 22. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State has not complied with the orders contained in Operative Paragraph No. 4 of the Judgment and, moreover, it has not complied with its duty to submit clear and specific information in that regard. Therefore, the Court considers it is necessary for the State to adopt adequate measures to fully and promptly comply with its obligation to investigate the events of the instant case, to identify and, as the case may be, punish those responsible and timely report to the Tribunal. Hence, taking into account the commitment of the State (supra Considering clause No. 9), the latter should submit a schedule of all procedures to be performed, their potential dates and the institutions or individuals who will perform them. According to this schedule, the State should also indicate the administrative and budgetary procedures to be performed prior to investigations tasks, and also identify the difficulties detected to investigate the case and a plan, subject to a specified term, to overcome such difficulties. 23. Additionally, in order to perform this task, the state should take into account the requests made by the surviving victims in that regard, the relatives of the deceased victims or their representatives; to that effect, communication with these individuals should be fluent. In that regard, the Court notes that for any reparation measure, including the quest for justice, the reparation intended by the States should be, not only effective, but it should also safeguard the dignity of the intended beneficiaries of the reparation measures. The State should guarantee that all procedures carried out perform a redressing function and do not translate into -or are perceived by the victims- simply as compliance with State obligations. Compliance with the orders for reparation issued by the Court is not a concession made by the State to the victims, but a right of the latter that must be promptly and respectfully satisfied, and it is necessary to that end to establish fluent communication among those in charge of complying with such reparations and their beneficiaries.23 THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions pursuant to the provisions in Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 25(1) and 30 of the Statute of the Court, and Articles 31 and 69 of its Rules of Procedure,24 DECLARES: 1. That is shall keep the monitoring proceeding open until the paragraphs pending compliance in the instant case are fulfilled, namely furthering the investigation of the events referred to in the instant case and punishing those responsible (Operative Paragraph No. 4 of the Judgment). 22 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Court of December 02, 2003, Considering clause No. 12, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 10, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, Considering clause No. 23. 23 24 Cf. Case Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 8. Rules approved by the Court in its LXXXV Regular Session, held on January November 16-28, 2009.