52 192. The Court takes into account the fact that the State has investigated, tried, and punished two of the perpetrators of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s homicide (supra para. 80 and 91). 193. However, as was established in the present Judgment, during the investigation into the homicide of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto, the State failed in its duty to collaborate with the judicial authorities, specifically with respect to the inspection of the books containing the records of entry and departure of the personnel of the San Benito Battalion of the National Police, which constituted an obstruction of the investigation (supra para. 116). For that reason, the State should bring this investigation to its proper conclusion. 194. In addition, an investigation into the threats and harassment suffered by José Mauricio García Prieto and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto still remains open at this time. (supra para. 94, 116, 137, and 157). This investigation should be continued as soon as possible, in accordance to domestic legislation. 195. Pursuant to its duty to investigate, the State must utilize all available means to expedite the investigation and the corresponding judicial proceedings, such that it avoids the repetition of events like those of the present case. 196. It is incumbent upon the States to create norms and adjust their practices as necessary in order to comply with the orders and decisions of the Inter-American Court, if such norms and practices do not yet exist. 197. On the other hand, the Commission and the common intervener requested that the Court order the State to nullify the statute of limitations corresponding to the criminal proceedings with respect to the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto. The Court notes that it has not found evidence in the prosecutor’s file number 34-0003 such that it could determine if the statute of limitations has been applied in this case. Given this situation, the Court will not rule upon the issue, due to the lack of sufficient elements to do so. b) Publication of the Judgment 198. Given the express request of the Commission and the common intervener, the Court finds it appropriate to order, as it has in other cases,112 that the State publish in its official gazette and in another newspaper of broad national circulation, the following: the operative paragraphs of this Judgment, as well as the following paragraphs: 1 to 3, 5 to 11 of Section I, titled “Introduction to the Case and SubjectMatter of Dispute”; 76 to 160 of Section VIII, titled “Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) in relation with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, including the names of each section and subsection respectively and without the footnotes. This publication should be effectuated once within six months, counted from service of the present Judgment upon the parties. 112 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 110, para. 79; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 192; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 151; and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 174..