71. The obligation to investigate the facts, identify, prosecute and, if necessary, punish those responsible, must be fulfilled within a reasonable period of time. In this case, the State failed to discharge its obligation ex officio for approximately fourteen years (supra para. 49). C) Measure of restitution: expungement of criminal records 72. In the friendly settlement agreement, in the section on “Reparation for non-pecuniary damage and measures of satisfaction,” the State “agree [d] to expunge any criminal records existing against the victims in this case, whenever these refer to the facts that form the basis of [the friendly settlement] Agreement.” The agreement also stipulated that this measure would be coordinated by the Human Rights Defense Unit of the Interior Ministry and should be implemented within one year of the notification of [this] Judgment.” 73. The Court recalls that the existing criminal records of the victims related to the facts of this case are concerned as much with the criminal conviction for the crime of possessing firearms for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as with the conviction for the crimes of homicide, injuries, violent robbery, organized crime and damage to property (supra paras. 40 to 42 and 46 to 48). It has been proven to this Court that this last judgment was revoked and that Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre were acquitted of those crimes. Even though the documents concerning the annulment of the criminal conviction for possession of firearms have not been forwarded to this Court, the Court understands that the State’s commitment to expunge any criminal records that may exist to the detriment of the victims for the facts in this case, includes both criminal convictions for which this measure was approved under the terms agreed by the parties. In line with its previous orders in this regard,93 the Court recalls that the implementation of this measure implies that all legal, administrative, criminal and police records that exist against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre in relation to this case should be eliminated. D) Measure of rehabilitation: medical and psychological care 74. In the friendly settlement agreement, in the section on “Reparation for non-pecuniary damages and compensation measures,” the State “agree [d] to grant the victims preferential and free medical care through the Program of Free Access to Medical Services and Medicines for Federal District Residents lacking Social Security Benefits provided by the Federal District’s Department of Health.” It specified that this involves, “three levels of care under the aforementioned Program, […], [the victims] having access to all interventions and care for diseases and illnesses, including those of a psychological nature.” Furthermore, “they will have access to the pharmaceutical services and products established in the social security medical coverage.” The agreement also stated that “ [i]n the event that they should require medical services that are provided at facilities outside their place of residence, they will have the right to claim the respective travel and subsistence costs from the State.” “As to the third level of care, appropriate specialized medical care will be provided through the National Health Institutes, the Federal Referral Hospitals and the Regional High-Specialty Hospitals, as applicable.” 75. Moreover, it was agreed that, “[if] the victims should move to another Mexican State, medical care will be provided in the new place of residence through the Seguro Popular scheme, or any related program offering the same level of care as established in the aforementioned program.” It further provided that, “the Human Rights Defense Unit of the Interior Ministry and 93 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra note 88, para. 78 and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 253. 23