6 comply with its decisions. The State’s timely observance of the obligation to indicate how it is complying with each of the Court’s orders is fundamental for evaluating its compliance with the Judgment as a whole.6 a) Obligation to investigate the facts of the case and to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, if applicable (Operative Paragraph one of the Judgment) 8. The State reported that the Public Prosecutions Department has asked witnesses to testify and identify the perpetrators on several occasions. Testimonies can be made at any police station or at the Public Prosecutions Department in order to guarantee the safety of witnesses; however, despite there being sufficient safety mechanisms in place, no witnesses have agreed to testify. The State also mentioned that it has established a “Coordination Team” chaired by the Attorney General for the purpose of investigating the case. At the private hearing, the State indicated that it cannot prosecute without having identified possible perpetrators; however, it also stated that because one of the alleged perpetrators is currently the subject of another investigation, authorities will be able to devote “more time and attention” to this case after the first trial has concluded. Finally, the State requested “advice” from the Inter-American Commission, the Tribunal, or the representatives on how to encourage witnesses to testify and proposed that interrogations be carried out at the seat of the Inter-American Court. 9. The representatives indicated that the State has made no “demonstrable progress towards compliance” other than the establishment, in 2005, of a “Coordination Team” for the purpose of “‘preparing the investigation and judicial process.’” Moreover, the State has apparently put “the onus for moving the process forward on the victims.” According to the representatives, there are victims “willing to testify if effective guarantees for their safety are in place”; however, “the victims’ attempts to establish a mechanism […] for their safety have not resulted in an agreement with the State.” Though they “believe that viable and less onerous alternatives exist,” the representatives signaled their willingness to accept, under certain conditions,7 the State’s proposal that witnesses render their testimonies at 6 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause five; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering clause seven; and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering clause seven. 7 For the representatives to accept, the State must agree to the payment of all associated costs. It must also agree that the victims who “choose to testify shall have, individually or collectively, legal counsel of their choice – if necessary, paid for by the State – [at] every occasion that their testimony may be taken or that they are otherwise interviewed by State officials.” Furthermore, those who consent to testify must have “the right to revoke their consent at any time and for any reason,” and the State must ensure “the victims’ safety on their return to Suriname or French Guiana” in a manner “agreed to beforehand by the victims.” Finally the State must ensure that “any threatening or otherwise inappropriate public statements about the massacre or the investigation thereof made by […] former or present military leaders or persons acting on […] their behalf are immediately and publicly refuted by high ranking State officials and sanctioned where warranted.” All of this or “some other mutually acceptable arrangement” must be “memorialized in a binding and enforceable legal agreement.”