6 face harassment and pressure.” They added that “the Inter-American Court could play a significant role in these proceedings by providing now [...] the file at the domestic level;” d) “the shortcomings in coordination between State agencies” and the steps taken by the Prosecutor’s Office, taking into account “the reopening of a grave that had already been opened in 1993, without any positive results” were matters of great concern; e) in relation to the referral of the case to the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office, they believed that the proceedings to be referred “are the steps taken in November, only those related to the abovementioned exhumations, which is not much;” f) “within the [Human Rights] Prosecutor’s Office appropriate personnel should be assigned to the case and provided with financial resources as well as with security given that the case will most probably regain prominence.” They noted “the upsurge in violence and constant reprisals against all the witnesses and other people involved in this case as well as their next of kin,” especially against Otoniel de la Roca and his next of kin. Therefore, they insisted that “it is key that protection is provided to all witnesses and counsels and officers of the Court that will be involved,” and g) the full participation of Mrs. Harbury in the criminal proceedings must be ensured and the appointment of the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation must be made in consultation with the victim’s next of kin. 13. That Guatemala stated that it did not have specific information regarding the existence or nonexistence of the case file and that, according to the report from the Attorney General’s Office, “the Prosecutor’s Office is updating the case file in order to make available all the information gathered.” 14. That the Commission expressed regret over the fact that after ten years “there is still no information about any procedures that have been somewhat effective.” In addition, it expressed concern over the loss of the case file. 15. That the Court notes that the information provided by the parties at the hearing shows that there has been no significant progress in the location of the mortal remains of Mr. Efraín Bámaca-Velásquez or in the investigation into the facts that gave rise to the violations and the identification and punishment of those responsible therefor, which means that the violations declared in the instant case remain unpunished, which impunity was noted by the Court in its Judgment on the merits6 over eight years ago and nearly seventeen years after the incidents. 16. That, at the hearing, the State recognized “that Guatemala has yet to comply with this and other Judgments of the Court,” in relation to the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the violations. Moreover, the Agent added that it would be useful for the State not only to be able to resort to international instruments and Court decisions but also to specific ideas and global formulas that could help break the cycle of impunity in Guatemala. 6 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 211.