9 consider this positive experience in order to implement it in other cases. In the last comments, they noted that the M.O.S. is the "most suitable program" to oversee compliance with the measures ordered by the Court, though they consider that it should be continuously evaluated and its operative rules, re-examined. They requested the Court to extend the enforcement of the M.O.S. under the terms agreed upon by the parties and repeated the need for the Inter-American Commission to actively participate in such program on behalf of the unidentified victims' next-of-kin. 17. That, in its comments and during the hearing, the Commission appreciated what was informed by the State and the representatives and positively valued all the actions taken by the State to comply with the measures. It particularly valued the extension of the deadline for the operation of M.O.S., agreed upon with the representatives, upon considering the importance of a debate space to discuss the details of compliance, which may lead to a change of the conditions. 18. That the Court positively values the establishment and beginning of the monitoring mechanism, its regular meetings and the appropriate participation of the victims' representatives and their next-of-kin. Moreover, the Tribunal notes with satisfaction that the operation of this mechanism will continue, apart from what was stipulated in the Judgment and by mutual agreement with the parties, until December 2009 in order to continue monitoring the measures of reparations ordered by the Court that are still pending compliance. In such a way, the State has complied with what was ordered in the Judgment. Nevertheless, in view of the agreement entered into between the State and the representatives to extend the operation of the mechanism, the Tribunal shall continue monitoring its operation until the State complied with its duty, according to the terms mentioned in the Judgment. In this sense, the State and the representatives must inform, in the future, on this aspect; particularly, on the scope and content of the procedure and the decisions adopted within the framework of such mechanism. * * * Obligation to investigate into the facts and, if applicable, punish the responsible (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment) 19. That in relation to the obligation to immediately take such steps as may be necessary to activate and effectively complete, within a reasonable term, the investigation to establish the liability of the masterminds and direct perpetrators of the massacre, as well as those whose collaboration and acquiescence allowed the massacre to be committed, the Court notes that the State, the representatives and the Commission have submitted exhaustive information and have discussed relevant issues or aspect; therefore, it deems pertinent to specifically assess the aspects addressed to determine the level of compliance with this obligation, in the following order: a) the investigations conducted by the Attorney General’s Office and the results; b) the appointment of an exclusive public prosecutor, and c) the extradition of an alleged responsible. * * * 20. That, before entering into the analysis of the foregoing, the Court needs to decide on the State’s request as to the publication of the information presented in relation to the investigations. The State has requested the Tribunal not to mention, in any public document, the information furnished by the parties on the investigation conducted in relation to these facts and the search for the remains of the victims, in