4 possible to access the investigation and request measures that contribute to the clarification of the death of Mr. Almonacid Arellano;" b) Through the Resolution of December 24, 2008, said Judge also ordered: the reopening of case No. 40.184 of the First Criminal Court of Rancagua to continue its processing; the nullification of the Resolution of the Second Military Court of Santiago of 28 January, 1997, that acquitted two suspects in the murder case of Mr. Almonacid Arellano, and nullify the Resolution of March 25, 1998, which confirmed the acquittal; and, reestablish the indictment against one of them, who is the retired Major of the Carabineros, on suspicion of murder. As regards to the other accused party, a retired Suboficial Mayor [Chief Non Commissioned Officer] of the Carabineros, the State reported that he had died on June 21, 2005. In relation to the progress of criminal case No. 40.184, the State explained that: "this case had to be heard according to the rules that formerly governed criminal proceedings;" it is in the preliminary stage, which is secret; on July 6, 2009, it requested that the preliminary investigation be heard and it was waiting for the respective judicial resolution; and, in August 2010, it added that as a result of the inquiries carried out by the Examining Magistrate, it was possible to determine "the identity of the officer who drove the vehicle in which a badly wounded Mr. Almonacid was transported to the hospital in Rancagua," and the involvement of the defendant in the present case was established "through oral testimonies, confrontations, and his own confession, [which] is extremely relevant because [the defendant] has always denied any involvement with the death of Luis Almonacid;" and, c) Similarly, Chile sent a copy of the amendment bill for the Code of Military Justice, which "was submitted for consideration before the National Congress" on July 3, 2007. As indicated in the bill, one of the proposed amendments suggested that, as a rule of jurisdiction for military justice, said jurisdiction should be exercised "over military when ruling on cases pertaining to military jurisdiction" and that "the jurisdiction of military courts only be applied to military crimes against the sovereignty of the State and its domestic and foreign security, when such crimes are committed by soldiers," which would be subject to certain exceptions. 7. The representatives did not make observations on any of the State reports, despite the various submission requests that were made, following the President of the Court's instructions, stating that such submissions be made as promptly as possible given the expiration of the submission deadlines (supra Having Seen 4 and 10), and the only information submitted to the Court were copies of two decisions adopted domestically in relation to the investigation of the facts in this case,5 without making any assessment about it. 8. The Commission stated that it "positively value[d] the information provided by the State in relation to justice measures taken" but it noted that this information showed that, "the investigation is still in its early stages, only one person was accused [...], and no detailed information has been submitted about the investigative measures that had been exhausted to determine other possible perpetrators." It also positively valued proceedings carried out as part of the investigation initiated in civil courts and it believed the State should continue to report on progress in the investigation. 5 The representative submitted a copy of the resolution issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, whereby it ordered to make the background facts available to the special visiting judge appointed by the Appeals Court for Rancagua as well as the order passed down by the first instance judge, which provided for the nullification of the enforcement of the amnesty law and the dismissal ordered in the case.