-17- (b) Payment of the amounts established for reimbursement of costs and expenses (fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). The State paid the amount corresponding to CEJIL, while the payment to the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda was pending. In this regard, the Court has noted that the representatives indicated (supra Having seen paragraph 7) that “[t]he State has advised that it is willing to pay the costs in favor of ProBúsqueda; this has not been accomplished for administrative reasons within the Association.” 12. That the Court considers it essential that the State submit current information on the following points that are pending compliance: (a) Obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the reported facts in this case, identify and punish those responsible and conduct a genuine search for the victims, and eliminate all the obstacles and mechanisms de facto and de jure that prevent compliance with these obligations in the instant case, so that it uses all possible measures, either through the criminal proceedings or by adopting other appropriate measures, and to publicize the result of the criminal proceedings (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). The State reported that “the competent authorities responsible for investigating crimes, and prosecuting them […] are playing an active role in specific procedures designed to clarify the facts so as to conclude the judicial proceedings [….] At the request of the Prosecutor’s Office, the respective court has sent an official communication to the Ministry of Defense requesting information on those responsible for the military operations in the zone and those who took part in them.” The Commission and the representatives observed that the State had not provided specific information in this regard and concluded that there was an evident failure to comply with the measure by the judicial authorities and prosecutors responsible for the investigations. The representatives also advised on actions taken in the criminal proceedings before the Chalatenango Trial Court; (b) “Establishment of a national commission to trace young people who disappeared during the internal armed conflict when they were children, with the participation of civil society” (seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005); i) In the judgment, the Court indicated that it had taken into account that Executive Decree No. 45 had been issued on October 5, 2004, creating the “Inter-institutional Commission to trace children who disappeared as a result of the armed conflict in El Salvador.” However, in the judgment of March 1, 2005, the Court indicated clearly that the State could comply with this measure through the said Inter-institutional Commission, if the latter satisfied the parameters established by the Court; otherwise, it should create a new commission that did satisfy those parameters. According to the information provided during the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment, the State has chosen to comply with this measure through the said Inter-institutional Commission;