4 7. That the Commission “valued the updated information sent by the State, and it does not show any significant advances after almost five years from the ordering of the Judgment of the Inter-American Court.” Due this, the Commission urged Guatemala to perform “concrete measures” to comply with the identification, process and punishment of the guilty, and also with the publishing of the results of said investigation. 8. That even though the State has presented information about some proceedings and measures taken in 2008 to comply with the pending paragraph, the Court observes that more than five years have passed since the ordering of the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1) and more than sixteen years since the perpetration of the facts object of the present case, and that the said continues to be in the investigation case internally, without any precise results. 9. That in its jurisprudence, the Inter-American Court has highlighted that the delay in the process of legal causes might generate, among others, the denial of ustice for the victims or the next of kin, and it can also frustate the continuity of the proceedings.2 In consequence, the State must intensify its efforts for the facts that originated the present case to be investigated properly. The Court reiterates that this obligation must be complied by the State as soon as possible, and taking into account that in the Judgment (supra Having Seen paragraph 1, Considering paragraph 58(4) to 58(6)) it is determined that the guilty might be State agents. 10. That in conformity with paragraph 177 of the Judgment, “the victim must have access and capacity to act in all the stages of the respective investigation and judgment, according to the internal law and rules of the American Convention.” In this regard, the Court deems relevant that the State and the representatives determine the pertinent and adequate mechanisms of dialogue and information for the investigation of the facts of the present case, in conformity with the internal law, that allow the verifying of the due compliance of the still pending paragraph. 11. That the Court will consider the general state of the compliance with said Judgment and the present order once it receives the pertinent information about the only paragraph pending of compliance. Also, it might eventually summon the State, the representatives and the Commission to a private hearing to evaluate the compliance with the Judgment. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its inherent power to monitor the compliance of its decisions, and in conformity to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 y 68(1) of the American Convention 2 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 158; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 115; and Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 82.