4 8. That now the Court proceeds to monitor compliance with the Judgment on reparations and costs (supra Having Seen clause No. 2) based on the information furnished by the State, the representatives and the Commission during the private hearing and gathered through the briefs of the case file. * * * 9. That in relation to the obligation to resort to all available means to locate the mortal remains of José Carlos Trujillo-Oroza and deliver them to his next of kin (operative paragraph one of the Judgment on reparations and costs, supra Having Seen clause No. 2,) during the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 11) the State informed that “on September 6, 2006, excavations were carried out at the cemetery of La Cuchilla in the city of Santa Cruz under the supervision of the prosecutor [in charge of the case; and that, as a result of] the excavations, 44 bone parts were found [which] now, according to official information, are in custody of the prosecutor mentioned above […]” The State also affirmed that the “genetic and anthropological” expert examinations of said mortal remains could not be carried out, but no reasons were given. On the other hand, it pointed out that an expert witness was appointed “to conduct a genetic and anthropological study of the mortal remains located in the mausoleum of […] the Asociación de Familiares Desaparecidos de Bolivia (Disappeared Relatives´ Association of Bolivia) [ASOFAN] in the city of La Paz to confront the results with the blood sample to be taken from Gladys Oroza de Solón, José Carlos Trujillo-Oroza’s mother.” According to the State, the expert witness was sworn in and took office on September 28, 2009. Moreover, the State referred to the petition made to the Instituto de Investigaciones Forenses (Forensic Research Institute) of Sucre to take a blood sample from Gladys Oroza and, in this sense, it stated that once the examination was completed the results would be transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Santa Cruz Department. In turn, it acknowledged that the State erred in informing the Court that the blood sample had been taken from Pablo Solón Romero-Oroza, the victim’s brother. With regard to the petition made by the representatives and the Commission to draw a schedule of the actions to be taken to locate the remains of José Carlos Trujillo-Oroza, the State expressed its agreement but noted that “the Ministry of Justice shall be consulted [accordingly.]” 10. That the representatives pointed out that “[i]n practice, no concrete progress has been made since the first judgment of the [Inter-American] Court delivered 9 years ago […]” They also pointed out that in the cemetery of La Cuchilla some remains were found and “collected [without following] standard procedure and that a backhoe was used in the process,” and that the remains “are deposited in plastic bags at the office of the prosecutor” in charge of the case. Regarding the information previously forwarded by the State on the blood sample taken from José Carlos Trujillo-Oroza, the representatives pointed out that said information was untrue. Finally, they alleged that “the remains of José Carlos TrujilloOroza do not rest in the ASOFAN mausoleum […,]” and that they might be located in any of the several sites mentioned in the judicial proceedings pending in the city of Santa Cruz. In this sense, they mentioned that a schedule should be drawn up to search for the remains in those sites. The representatives requested that a “schedule of concrete actions” be drafted. 7.