excavations at the ex-military barracks in Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero State.” Additionally, the representatives stated that the Attorney General’s Office “has not addressed the last proposals [they] made during the preliminary inquiry,” and “the Public Ministry has not taken concrete actions demonstrating that investigations in the case are advancing effectively.” Finally, the representatives indicated to the Tribunal that although they have had full access to the preliminary inquiry’s files at the Attorney General’s Office, they have been denied copies of those files, which “restricts [the] right to participate in the investigation and violates […] the victims’’ right to access justice.” Additionally, the representatives stated that “they were denied participation” in an ministerial inspection, “which consisted of a search for registries in cemeteries in the area of unknown persons that died in the 70's,” since authorization had not been granted to them. 9. The Inter-American Commission affirmed that it “value[d] the [State’s] efforts to reactivate the investigations of the case.” However, it observed that “no significant advances had been verified [in those investigations] since the date that the [J]udgment was issued.” For that reason, it indicated that “the State should carry out all efforts necessary to act with due diligence and take relevant actions that will lead to effective compliance with these aspects of the Judgment.” Finally, the Commission “showe[d] concern over the information submitted by the representatives with respect to the State’s refusal to give them copies of the investigations, given that this situation was evaluated by [the Court] in its [J]udgment, in which it indicated that this [was] incompatible with their right to access justice.” 10. The Court observes that the State undertook measures in the aforementioned preliminary inquiry, which is being carried out by civilian authorities, as ordered in the Judgment. However, from the information presented by the State, it is not possible for the Court to ascertain how the preliminary inquiry complies with the standards set out in the Judgment with respect to the elements that must be considered in the investigation of facts 5 such as those that occurred in this case. The Tribunal reminds the parties that in this case, the obligation to investigate entails not only the duty to search for Mr. Radilla Pacheco, but also to undertake effective investigations with due diligence and in a reasonable time that could lead to a determination of criminal responsibility and to the effective implementation of any possible criminal punishments and other consequences provided for by the law. The Court highlights that 37 years have passed since Mr. Radilla Pacheco disappeared at the hands of State agents. Due to the foregoing, it is necessary that the State submit updated, detailed, and complete information on all of the actions it is undertaking with respect to the investigation into the facts of this case, in such a way that the Court may verify that the investigations are being carried out in accordance with the purpose of this reparation measure. 11. Additionally, as to the State’s refusal to provide copies of the preliminary inquiry’s files so indicated by the representatives (supra Considering Clause 8), this point was specifically addressed by the Court in its Judgment, indicating that this refusal was “incompatible with the right to participate in the preliminary inquiry[, which] translated into a violation of Tita Radilla Martinez’s right to fully participate in the investigation.” The Court held that “the victims in the present case must have the right to access the case file, as well as to request and obtain copies of it, given that the information contained therein is not subject to confidentiality” because it relates to grave human rights violations. Additionally, with respect to the alleged denial of the representatives’ participation in an examination of cemetery registries, the Court reminds the parties that in its Judgment it repeated that 5 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco V. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 206, 215 and 222. 4