Mejía Ramírez and José Rubén Rivera Rivera, as well as other related illegal acts (second operative paragraph of the Judgment) 5. The State advised that, following notification of the Judgment of the Court, it had transmitted the decision contained in this operative paragraph to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the entity responsible for investigating the facts, and that the said Office had not reported the existence of recent results in relation to this case. Consequently, the State did not have any information concerning specific results as regards the investigation that would reflect a change in the situation of the proceedings that are underway. 6. The representatives expressed their concern because, despite the Court’s decision, “not the slightest progress has been made in one of the most important measures ordered by the Court.” In addition, they considered that it was essential that the prosecutors responsible for the investigations forward a complete, detailed and updated report, as soon as possible, which “should contain, as a minimum, details of the strategies and lines of investigation that have been defined, as well as a description of all the measures taken to date […], the pertinence of these measures, and also of those that are pending, and a timetable for carrying out the latter as rapidly as possible.” Consequently, they asked the Court to find that the State has failed to comply with this obligation totally, to continue monitoring this measure, and to order the State to provide updated and detailed information on the investigation of each of the cases. 7. The Commission observed with concern that the State had not presented information on this point. In this regard, it considered it relevant that the Court ask the State to present, as soon as possible, complete, detailed and updated information on compliance with this obligation, which means that it must provide information on: (a) the strategies and lines of investigation followed in the criminal, administrative or any other type of proceedings opened to determine all the masterminds and perpetrators of the forced disappearances in this case, including State officials; (b) the investigations related to the harm caused to Gregoria Herminia Contreras by facts such as her appropriation, the alteration of her identity, ill-treatment and sexual abuse, and (c) the way in which it is ensuring that full access and legal standing of the victims or their next of kin at all stages of the different investigations and proceedings. 8. The Court has previously established that the order to prosecute and eventually punish the perpetrators and to discover the truth of the facts is one of the essential decisions contained in the judgments of the Court, because it is intended to provide moral satisfaction for the victims; it permits mentally overcoming the violations committed; it reestablishes social relations; it contributes to avoiding the repetition of the facts; it helps to eliminate the power that the perpetrators could eventually exercise, and it signifies that justice has been obtained with the application of the respective legal consequences, punishing those who deserve it and providing reparation to those who merit it.6 9. Accordingly, the Court notes with concern that the State merely advised that it had no information relating to the specific results of investigations that would reflect a change in the situation of the proceedings underway, because the Prosecutor General’s Office had not reported the existence of recent results in relation to this case (supra considering paragraph 6 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, twentieth considering paragraph, and 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, sixteenth considering paragraph. 4