11 in its judgment on reparations and, specifically, the provisions of the sixth, seventh and eighth considering paragraphs of the [...] Order on compliance. 3. That the representatives of the victims and their next of kin and the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights must present their comments on the State’s report within two months of receiving it. […] 45. The report of the State of April 4, 2003, in which it indicated that, in agreement with the petitioners, it had called a meeting to be held on April 7, 2003, to explain the requirements and the documents needed by the Banco Cafetero Internacional to change the name in which the TDCs were registered. During this meeting, the issue of the interest that had not been paid to Ana Vitelma Ortiz would also be discussed. Lastly, the State indicated that the Office of the Attorney General had not provided any further information on the measures taken to locate the remains of the victims or on progress in the investigation of the facts. 46. The brief of July 4, 2003, in which the representatives of the victims and their next of kin presented their comments on the State’s report of April 4, 2003, among which they indicated that: a) Regarding the meeting held on April 10, 2003, the participants were informed that a single term deposit certificate had been established, even though it was for two different individuals, of which, only Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez would have attained her majority on the investment’s date of expiry. In this respect, Bancafé had advised that a change in ownership would imply canceling the current TDC, creating another one, and losing the guaranteed financial return by adjusting them to current rates that were lower. Consequently, the representatives requested that the ownership should not be changed and that the situation of the minor, Iván Andrés, should be resolved to ensure that he was not prejudiced. The issue of the interest owed to Ana Vitelma Ortiz was not referred to at this meeting; b) Regarding the investigations, the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General had ordered the preclusion of the criminal investigation in favor of the individuals involved in the criminal proceeding, but had ordered that the preliminary stage of the investigation should continue, which suggests that this could not last more than six months. They also indicated that, 16 years after the victims had disappeared, the criminal investigation was ineffective, because those responsible had not been identified or punished. In this respect, they requested that the Office of the Attorney General should declare the investigation re-opened, and that the 1990 acquittal should be annulled; and c) They considered that the Court should convene a public hearing for the State to explain the reasons why it had not complied with its judgments. 47. The communication of July 8, 2003, and its attachment, in which the representatives of the victims and their next of kin presented the original document with the comments on the State’s report. The attachment consisted of the Resolution issued by the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General on June 13, 2003.