5 9. When ordering the reparation measure concerning the obligation to investigate, the Court took into account that the violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection in this case were based on two factors: i) the granting of jurisdiction to military courts, by means of a Supreme Court decision, to hear the case concerning the death of Mr. Almonacid Arellano; and, ii) the enforcement of Decree Law No. 2.191 by which the military tribunals that ruled on the case granted themselves amnesty.6 Consequently, in order to ensure that these violations are not repeated in this case, the Court ordered that the State, so as to fulfill its obligation to investigate the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Almonacid Arellano and to identify and, where appropriate, punish those responsible, should: i) ensure that the Decree Law does not continue to hinder the investigation into what happened to Mr. Almonacid Arellano, ii) nullify the decisions and judgments issued domestically that authorize jurisdiction to the military courts and allowed the investigation to be closed under the Decree Law; and, iii) refer the case to the courts, so that as part of criminal proceedings those responsible for the death of Mr. Almonacid Arellano be identified and punished.7 10. The Court also stated, inter alia, that the investigation should comply with the following: not enforce the Decree Law No. 2.191, not invoke prescription periods, non-retroactivity of criminal law, the principle of ne bis in idem, as well as not implementing any other measures to eliminate responsibility, or avoid the duty to investigate and punish those responsible;8 ensure that all public institutions provide the necessary facilities to the ordinary court that hears the case of Mr. Almonacid Arellano;9 and ensure that Ms. Elvira del Rosario Gómez Olivares and Alfredo, Alexis and José Luis Almonacid Gómez have full access and ability to participate in all phases and stages of the investigations, in accordance with domestic law and the norms of the American Convention.10 11. To assess the state of compliance with the obligation to investigate what happened to Mr. Almonacid Arellano, the Court has referred to the information provided by Chile, which was not disputed by the representative or the Commission. However, the Court notes that, with the exception of two decisions taken in December 2008 in domestic criminal proceedings,11 the Court does not have copies of the rulings and proceedings taken in connection with said investigation, both with respect to granting jurisdiction to ordinary courts and the execution of criminal proceedings pending before said jurisdiction, since the State has not provided copies of these actions and rulings. The Court also considers that the only occasion when the representative addressed the Tribunal in relation to monitoring compliance with the Judgment was to present a copy of the two judicial resolutions that relate specifically to the progress reported by the State (supra Considering Clause 7). The Court also notes that, regarding the rulings and proceedings carried out in the preliminary stage of the criminal proceedings pending before the ordinary courts, the 6 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 146. 7 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 6, para. 145-147. 8 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 6, para. 151-155. 9 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 6, para. 156. 10 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 6, para. 157. 11 In particular, in the case file concerning monitoring compliance with the Judgment there are copies of the Resolution issued on December 24, 2008, by the aforementioned special visiting judge (supra Considering Clauses 6(a) and 6(b)), as well as the ruling of December 3, 2008 of the Supreme Court of Justice for Chile (supra Considering Clause 6(a)).