8 [was] created […], and will be established within the organization of the Attorney General’s Office.” According to the State, the regulation to be issued by the Attorney General for such purposes “has already been issued” and approximately eighty individuals are receiving protection through that office. 23. That, in addition, the State informed the Court of the legislative measure implemented, i.e. Decree No. 21-2006 “Organized Crime Control Law”, which seeks to “define the criminal conduct attributable to the members and/or associates of criminal organizations; establish and regulate special criminal investigation and prosecution methods [...]; establish provisions regarding individuals assisting in the criminal prosecution of these activities, protective measures, punishment, and measures designed to prevent, combat, dismantle and eradicate organized crime.” Furthermore, the Judiciary has allegedly created a “Security Services for Officers of the Court” to protect judges. Finally, Guatemala stated that the “International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), established by an Agreement between the United Nations and Guatemala is currently hearing high-profile cases.” 24. That the representatives pointed out that “despite the enactment of the legislation mentioned by the [State] and the family’s efforts to gather testimony from individuals from the area where the incidents took place, those in charge of the investigation were unable to use such testimony due to the State’s refusal to provide [...] protection to these people and their families.” They added that “according to data from the Attorney General’s Office, collected by the MINAPADMAG Foundation, during the year after the Judgment of this Honorable Court, there were 220 reports of attacks or threats against officers of the court. Concerns over the risk faced in Guatemala by investigative assistants, prosecutors and judges in the performance of their duties have been raised by several international organizations, and such risk hinders the investigation of this and other cases and punishment of those responsible.” 25. That the Court recognized the progress made through the issuance of the Decrees as well as the creation of a “Security Services for Officers of the Court.” However, the information available is not enough for this Court to be able to assess the implementation of said law or its efficacy in the protection of persons participating in the instant case. In this connection, the Court notes that, according to the representatives, security safeguards were not provided to the witnesses offered by Mr. Carpio’s next of kin. Therefore, the State is required to provide further information. In addition, the State must submit a global report on mechanisms and goals regarding protection of officers of the court, the victims’ next of kin or witnesses. It is the duty of the State to identify ex officio the risk facing any interested party or person involved in the investigation as well as to handle in a diligent manner any concerns raised in that regard by the parties involved in the proceedings. The State shall warn every witness about such risk, asses the level of risk regularly and adopt appropriate measures accordingly. * * * 26. That, with regard to the duty of the State to adopt specific measures to improve its investigative capacity (third operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State pointed out that “the Attorney General’s Office [...] is reorganizing the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office [in charge] of investigating past crimes,” among which this case is included. The State added that an “analysis and investigations unit” will be created, which will be attached to said Office. Furthermore, “permanent investigators […] of the