4 9. That regarding the foregoing, the representatives stated that “the obligation of the State –in this case, Paraguay- to comply with the Court’s decisions is independent from any domestic decisions that may be adopted, such as the creation of [said Inter-institutional Commission].” In this regard, the representatives concluded that “the information submitted by the State regarding this obligation is not relevant in order to be informed about and assess the effective compliance with the reparation measures ordered by the Court” in the instant case. The Commission did not rule on this matter. 10. That the Court appreciates the State’s efforts towards the creation of said Interinstitutional Commission for the full compliance with the judgments rendered by the InterAmerican Court, including the judgment delivered in the instant case. Therefore, it urges the State to continue taking such measures as may be necessary to guarantee the effective compliance with the State’s obligations as ordered by the Court. * * * 11. That regarding the obligation to take, in full accordance with the right to a fair trial and within a reasonable period of time, all such measures as may be necessary to identify, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish all those responsible for the violations committed in the instant case (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State informed that the case entitled “Aníbal López-Insfrán and Eduardo Riveros on/ homicide in Villarrica” is currently pending before the Criminal Court of Villarrica.” 12. That the representatives pointed out that “[t]he information submitted by the [State] of Paraguay is not even minimally sufficient to fulfill its obligation to inform on this [m]easure.” They further argued that the report “does not even state whether the record referred to above is related to the facts of [the] instant case, nor does it refer to the procedural stage of such proceedings, the measures ordered therein, the results thereof, or the lines of investigation followed, among other elements.” Therefore, the representatives pointed out that, all in all, the State “has [n]ot [submitted] any information which allows the Court and the parties to reach a conclusion as to the degree of compliance with this measure.” Finally, they added that the State has not submitted any documents to support the information it furnished. 13. That the Commission highlighted that in due time “the [Inter-American] Court was provided with information regarding a proceeding started before the ordinary courts against the persons [referred] to by the State, in which judgment was delivered on March 2, 2005 convicting Corporal Second Class López-Insfrán and sentencing him to one yearimprisonment on the charge of ‘homicide committed in the performance of duty,’ a sentence which was deemed to have been fully served as h[e] had been previously sentenced in the military jurisdiction to one-year imprisonment and had served such sentence in Peña Hermosa prison.” It further argued that “in said judgment, Mr. Eduardo Riveros-Gavilán was acquitted.” In this regard, the Commission highlighted that “[t]he information included by […] Paraguay in its report is insufficient as it does not state whether the proceeding [referred to above] is the proceeding wherein the Court has already rendered judgment or [it is] a new proceeding, nor does it refer to its procedural stage or to other investigative proceedings started in order to comply with the measures ordered by the Court as regards ‘all those responsible for the violations committed in the instant case.’”