4 protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations imposed by this Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in said judgments. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the level of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 8. That the Court considers that the hearing held to monitor compliance with the pending orders in the instant case has been very useful. * * * 9. That, as regards the location of the mortal remains of Mr. Bámaca-Velásquez, their exhumation in the presence of his widow and next of kin, and subsequent release to them (first operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations) and the investigation of the facts that gave rise to the violations, the identification and punishment of those responsible therefor as well as the public disclosure of the results of the respective investigation (second operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations), the State considered that both matters were “intimately connected with the investigation being conducted by the Attorney General’s Office;” therefore, it addressed both issues together during the public hearing. 10. That the State informed the Court that, on December 29, 2008, a meeting was held with the prosecutors in charge of the investigation and they reported that they had identified two locations where Mr. Bámaca-Velásquez may be buried. The State pointed out that said prosecutors “need to gather information from relatives to produce a genetic profile;” therefore, they “conducted several enquiries” to locate two sisters of the victim, who stated that they “did not want to be involved in the case.” Furthermore, Guatemala stated that the case was assigned to said prosecutors last year and that the anthropological investigation and subsequent exhumation is dependent on the support and authorization of the victim’s next of kin. The State added that the prosecutors “will subsequently analyze the possibility of referring the case to the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office” created “with special focus on the investigations of relevant facts for historical clarification.” Regarding progress in the investigations, the State pointed out that: a) on August 15, 2007, the Retalhuleu Prosecutor’s Office continued with the investigation procedures, including taking witness statements, and b) on May 2, 2008, the Attorney General’s Office reported that additional visits were made to the municipality of San Sebastián, department of Retalhuleu, to try to locate the individuals who might have information on the inhumations 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Claude-Reyes v. Chile, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of October 30, 2008, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7.