4 1995; however, they were detached from the proceedings by the Second Judge of the First Instance of Huehuetenango on the grounds of lack of evidence.” 6. That the representatives have not submitted observations to the reports of the State on the compliance with the Judgments (supra Having Seen Clause No. 6). 7. That the Inter-American Commission noticed that the information forwarded by the State regarding the arrest warrants “continues to be confusing” and that there are some inconsistencies “as to the names of said persons in the information [attached by the State] between the report of the Department Chief Office of the National Police of Huehuetenango of March 12, 1997 and the repetition on the part of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of October 11, 2000, which the State should clarify.” The Commission repeated its request for the “State to forward the pertinent documentation evidencing that there is an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at present in charge of the investigation […].” It considered it necessary that the State, “through the pertinent authorities of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the PCN [,] investigates all the other people who, pursuant to the facts considered proven in the Judgment rendered by the Court, could have participated in the facts.” Finally, the Commission stated that Guatemala has failed to inform on the concrete actions adopted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or by the Civil National Police in order to ascertain the whereabouts of the people against whom there are pending arrest warrants. 8. That the arrest warrants against three possible responsible parties for the death and disappearance of Nicholas Chapman-Blake were issued in 1996 and to date they have not been effected by the domestic competent authorities. As to that, in its last reports (supra Having Seen Clause No. 4) the State has not shown any actions recently taken by the authorities in charge of the compliance of said arrest warrants. On the contrary, the measures informed by the State date from eight years. At the same time, Guatemala has not referred to each of the objections presented by the Inter-American Commission during the private hearing held in the instant case, nor to the observations and recommendations made by the victim´s next of kin in their writ of November 21, 2007 (supra Considering Clause No. 4). 9. That approximately twenty-three years have gone by since the occurrence of the facts of the instant case, and more than nine since the rendering of the Judgments on the merits, reparations and costs by the Court (supra Having Seen Clauses No. 1 and 2). Consequently, the Court notices with concern that, from the information contributed with by Guatemala, it cannot be concluded that the State has adopted the measures necessary to completely comply with what has been ordered by the Inter-American Court. 10. That the Court repeats to the State that by not investigating the forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions in the proper manner and by not effectively punishing the responsible parties, it violates its obligations to respect and guarantee the rights recognized by the Convention to the victim and his next of kin, it prevents society from knowing what happened and it reproduces the impunity