Involvement of Mr. Fornerón in his daughter’s life 166. Sixth, the bonding process should include appropriate mechanisms for Mr. Fornerón to become involved in the life of M, based on his condition as her biological father. Furthermore, Mr. Fornerón should receive periodic information on different aspects of her life and about her development. Submission of reports 167. Lastly, given the particularity of this case, the State must present a report within three months of notification of this Judgment on the characteristics, implementation, and progress in the bonding process. Subsequently, Argentina must submit an updated report on the said aspects every four months for the following two years. After this, the Court will determine the frequency with which the State must submit subsequent reports in the context of monitoring compliance with the Judgment, 2. Guarantees of non-repetition 2.1. Investigation and eventual sanction of officials 168. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to investigate and to apply the relevant measures or punishments to all the public officials found responsible for the violations perpetrated against the victims in this case. 169. The representatives requested this measure of reparation in similar terms to the Inter-American Commission. They also advised that, on July 5, 2010, they had filed complaints before the Review Panel of the Judicial Council of Entre Ríos against four officials involved in this case: (a) the Civil and Commercial first instance judge, Raúl A. Del Valle; (b) the deputy Ombudsman for Children and the Poor, Julio R. F. Guaita; (c) the investigating judge, Daniel Olarte, and (d) the Ombudsman for Children and the Poor, Marcelo Santiago Balbi. The representatives also indicated that the State had not played a proactive role in the proceedings concerning the responsibility of the judicial officials involved. Regarding the results of their complaints, they advised that former judge Olarte had retired and, therefore, could not be subjected to this type of proceeding, while “the other three officials were acquitted due to absence of merits.” They concluded that the State had not provided a satisfactory response and, even today, it has not provided any measure to punish the judicial agents responsible for the violations analyzed in this case.” 170. Argentina advised that the governor of the province of Entre Ríos had requested the province’s state prosecutor to evaluate possible irregularities in the conduct of the officials involved in the adoption proceedings and, if appropriate, to take the corresponding measures to determine the responsibilities of the said officials. In addition, in response to this Court’s request for information, Argentina indicated that the “Ministry of Governance and Justice of the province of Entre Ríos [had] responded […] that the province had taken several measures, including an evaluation of the conduct of the provincial officials, which verified that [the representatives] had access to justice.” In addition, it indicated that “several officials involved no longer belong to the Judiciary, because they have retired” and, also, “over the years, significant progress has been made as regards the legislative aspect." 171. During the public hearing and, subsequently, as a helpful measure, the Court asked the State to provide detailed information on the measures taken to verify whether the conduct of the officials who intervened in the different proceedings relating to this case was in conformity with the law and the results (supra para. 7). Argentina failed to provide a 46