4 State is once again repeating […] the information that was already submitted during the written proceedings. […] As regards the search for the mortal remains of Marco Antonio Molina and the delivery of such remains to his next of kin, the Court was clear in the order whereby it organized this private hearing that the information the State had submitted thus far could be traced back to a bill dating more than three years back, which had not been ruled upon by even one of the two committees it needs to be approved by in order to be debated by the house in full. The Court asked the State for concrete information regarding which steps had been taken, in addition to said bill that was more than three years old, and the State repeated the same information it had been providing via its written reports, when submitted in proper time. […] […] unfortunately, the State has failed to provide any new information, while once again conditioning the adoption of any sort of measures intended to find the remains of Marco Antonio upon the enactment of a law. This is a law which, in addition, according to its accompanying submission statement, is to govern the search for more than 45 thousand people who disappeared during the armed conflict in Guatemala. […] The same is true of the investigation […]. In April this year, we asked for a meeting with the attorney from the Procuraduría de Derechos Humanos [Office of the Attorney for Human Rights] in charge of the investigation; after the meeting, we reported on the serious status of the investigation, as the attorney […] personally advised us that he was unable to adequately follow up on the investigation, given the lack of material resources. He is in charge of 100 cases, one of which is the case of Molina-Theissen. He was not even aware of the fact that a judgment had been rendered in that case by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Obviously enough, he did not posses updated information on the proceedings, other than the constant time extensions the Supreme Court has granted in an investigation which, as noted by the State itself, has seen no progress whatsoever. 9. That, at the hearing, the Commission noted that five years ago the State acknowledged its responsibility. “However, such acknowledgment is not reflected by, and fails to translate into, serious action proportionate to the harm inflicted, to the seriousness of the violation.” It further noted that it was at a loss as to how the enactment of the bill referred to by the State into a law “would produce any specific, concrete result in the case of Marco Antonio.” Lastly, it revealed its concern over the State’s failure to provide updated information. 10. That, as done by the representatives and the Commission, the Court will also stress the fact that the State has merely repeated the information it had previously submitted, which the Tribunal and its President had found insufficient (supra Having Seen clauses Nos. 3 and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). Moreover, the State has made compliance with these orders in the Judgment dependent upon a legislative bill which, for one reason or the next, has failed, while refraining from taking any other type of steps intended to comply with the Court’s orders. The information submitted thus far leads to the conclusion that Guatemala has remained completely passive as far as these orders are concerned. 11. That, in its Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen clause No. 2), the Court noted that, in the instant case: Impunity prevails regarding the direct perpetrators and masterminds responsible for the facts. At the date of this Judgment, more than twenty-two years after the facts in the instant case, those responsible for the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina-Theissen have not been identified, tried, and punished. Therefore, there is a situation of impunity that constitutes a breach of the […] that is injurious to the victim and to his next of kin, and that fosters chronic recidivism of the human rights violations involved.5 12. That this case falls within Guatemala’s domestic armed conflict, a conflict that entailed major human, material, institutional and moral costs6. 5 Cf. Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 79. 6 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, paras. 121(b) and 207; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs.