-4 8. That according to the Order of the Court of March 3, 2005 (supra Having seen paragraph 4), the State should have submitted a detailed report on the measures it has taken to execute the aspects pending compliance of the judgment on reparations in this case by May 23, 2005, at the latest (supra Having seen paragraph 2). 9. That, on September 13, 2005, the State submitted a brief report in this regard, without the necessary supporting documents and nearly four months after the time allotted for presenting it had expired (supra Having seen paragraph 6). 10. That, since that date, the State has not forwarded any information regarding compliance with the judgments of the Court, despite the reminders sent by the Secretariat of the Court (supra Having seen paragraphs 5 and 10). 11. That this attitude of the State is contrary to its obligation to comply and to report to the Court on the measures taken to implement the reparations ordered by the Court in the domestic sphere and, thereby, denies access to international justice to the victims and beneficiaries of the said reparations.5 * 12. That, when monitoring complete compliance with the judgments on merits and reparations delivered in this case, and after examining the information provided by the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives in their respective briefs (supra Having seen paragraphs 6, 8 and 9), the Court observes that it has insufficient information on the following aspects that are pending compliance: (a) The location of the remains of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, their exhumation in the presence of his widow and next of kin, and their return to them (first operative paragraph de the judgment on reparations); (b) The investigation into the facts that gave rise to the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the identification and punishment of those responsible, and also the public divulgation of the results of the respective investigation (eighth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits and second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations); (c) The publication, once only, in the official gazette and in another newspaper with national circulation, of the chapter on proven facts and the operative paragraphs of the judgment on merits of November 25, 2000, and the organization of a public act to acknowledge [the State’s] responsibility for the facts of the case and to make amends to the victims (third operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations); and (d) The adoption of the legislative and any other measures necessary to adapt Guatemalan domestic laws to the international norms of human rights and humanitarian law, and to make these norms fully effective in the 5 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 130.