order to comply with national and international requirements concerning access to public information. 58. The representatives indicated that, although the State’s report referred to the adoption and entry into force of the Law on Access to Public Information, “more than 18 months after its entry into force, the Institute for Access to Public Information had still not been created, because the members of this entity had not been appointed, and it had not even been allocated a budget.” Thus, even with the law in force, “it is not possible” to exercise the right of access to public information, and that this right guarantee the opening of the military archives that would be useful and relevant in the search for the disappeared children. They also indicated that they were unaware whether, to date, the National Search Commission had exercised its authority “to inspect documentary records or archives of State institutions that are part of the Executive Branch, especially records or archives of military or police institutions, detention centers or prisons that operated between January 1, 1977 and January 16, 1992.” Consequently, the representatives indicated “that the measures reported by the State have not been effective to guarantee” this measure of reparation, and asked the Court to require the State to provide a complete and detailed report on the specific actions that it would be taking to comply with this measure of reparation. 59. The Commission reiterated the importance of this obligation, “because access to the State’s archives is a fundamental tool in the context of investigations into human rights violations.” In this regard, it considered that the necessary conditions must be established for those archives to be made available to all public agents involved in the investigations related to this case. Thus, it asked that the State present information concerning the steps taken to ensure satisfactory implementation of the Law on Access to Public Information, in particular: (i) the creation of the Institute for Access to Public Information; (ii) the assignment of officials and a budget so that it can start functioning, and (iii) the work of the access to public information units. In addition, the Commission considered that the State must provide detailed information on the mechanism used by the National Search Commission to access the State archives in cases of human rights violations. 60. The Court recalls that, in this case, it was proved: that the authorities of the Armed Forces and of the Ministry of Defense systematically refused to provide the Public Prosecution Service with information and with access to military archives and files; that this pattern continued from the time of the initial steps taken in the domestic investigations in 1997 and up until the final steps taken in 2010, and that this constituted one of the constraints to making progress in the investigations.20 The purpose of this guarantee of non-repetition is to eliminate the legal and factual obstacles and mechanisms that prevent the authorities responsible for conducting the investigations from having access to information that would be useful for their investigations, as well as preventing Salvador society in general from having access to this information. 61. In this regard, it is also pertinent to recall that the State had advised that that the Law on Access to Public Information was in force prior to the delivery of the Judgment in this case, and this information was assessed when ordering this measure of reparation.21 Now, in the context of monitoring compliance with the Judgment and as relevant in the 20 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paras. 169 and 212. 21 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 211. 19