4 been taken to obtain information from the Ministry of Defense regarding the military division in charge of the operations undertaken in the sector where the events took place, as well as the identity of the officers, civil patrol members and military commissioners that were allegedly involved in the Massacre, with a view to determining the applicable criminal liability. It further noted that the Attorney General’s Office had heard the testimony of the victims’ next of kin and was trying to locate persons who, given the offices held at the time of the events, might have knowledge of the facts. Lastly, it stated that it would continue to report to the Court on the progress made in the investigation (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). 6. That the representatives stressed that the “[…] investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for [the] facts constitute one of the most relevant issues […];” that, notwithstanding the State’s obligation to comply with the orders of the Court, the State has failed to take any action in connection with the investigation of the facts, noting once again “[…] the issues already raised before the Honorable Court regarding the incapacity of the Guatemalan organs in charge of administering Justice, and the remarkable bias shown by certain such organs as regards to hindering […] access to justice by [the] victims […]”. They further noted that the State has failed to specify whether the investigation steps it referred to were taken in compliance with the Court’s judgment or predated said Judgment, thus pertaining to other proceedings instituted by the victims. In this regard, they further stated that the only investigation step they were aware of consisted in the taking of additional statements from certain witnesses who had testified in January, 2006. Moreover, they claimed that, so far, there is no information available regarding the identity of the judge and prosecutor in charge of the case and that “[…] given the situation of risk that still prevails in Guatemala for those who initiate and drive this sort of actions forward […]” such information plays an important role in allowing adequate security measures to be taken. Lastly, they concluded that it is necessary for the State to report on: a) any progress made in the investigation after the Judgment was rendered; b) the identity of the judicial authorities in charge of the relevant proceeding; c) whether the criminal action mentioned by the State is an independent action or is a part of the genocide case pending before the national courts; and d) whether the surviving victims and their representatives are allowed to participate in the Committee to Advance the Case so as to foster the exchange of information (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). 7. That, as regards to the obligation to investigate the facts, the Commission noted that the State has failed to provide detailed information on any progress made in connection with such obligation. It further noted that “[…] securing justice is critical in order to mitigate the damage caused; accordingly, it is essential for the State to take concrete measures therefor as soon as possible […]” and for it to provide the Court with a copy of the judicial files for the actions instituted for such purpose (supra Having Seen clause No. 5). 8. That, based on the information submitted by the parties, it is the Court’s view that the State must submit detailed, updated information on the progress made in the investigation since the Judgment rendered by the Court on November 19, 2004, so that the Court will assess the status of compliance with the first operative paragraph of said Judgment (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). * * *