6 on February 5, 2010, and put forward by the representatives (supra Having Seen 3), that on September 23, 2009, case 66.138/96 was sent to trial. However, this correspondence also states that the case depends on a motion to vacate filed by the defense of the accused “and as a result, the brief ha[d] not yet been brought before an Oral Court that [would]” later be assigned.8 21. In accordance with the information presented by the State, the representatives, and the Commission, this Court considers that the obligation to conclude the criminal proceedings into facts that led to the alleged violations in the present case is still pending, as well as the obligation to resolve them according to applicable law as stated in operative paragraph ten of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1). Consequently, this Tribunal requests that the State submit information and documentation that would make it possible to clarify the questions raised by the Commission and the representatives, as well the information submitted by the State in its report. The Court stresses that Argentina must finalize, within a reasonable time period, these ongoing criminal proceedings while permitting the victim to enjoy full access to and the ability to participate in all stages and instances of the trial, in accordance with domestic law and the applicable sections of the American Convention.9 It is also appropriate to note that the authorities in charge of the investigation and prosecution must undertake their obligations with due diligence, especially considering the case has been open for numerous years, far exceeding all reasonable time periods, as was noted by the this Court in its Judgment, and as also demonstrated by the recurring objections on periods of prescription grounds. When the investigation and trial phases go beyond the reasonable time allotted, they are of detriment to the victim’s right to justice. Similarly, the Court requests that the relevant judicial authorities pronounce judgment within a reasonable timeframe on the appellate proceedings initiated by the Prosecutor General and the representatives of the victim so that case 66.138/96 and all legal actions relating thereto may be resolved without further delay. Furthermore, the Court requests that the State provide information on whether it has begun any other type of administrative or disciplinary procedure against those accused of torturing Mr. Bayarri. d) Regarding the obligation to publish, on just one occasion, in the Official Gazette and in two other widely circulated publications in the country, Chapters I, VII, VIII, and IX of the Judgment, excluding the corresponding footnotes, as well as the operative part contained therein (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment). 22. The State reported that, in accordance with the National Media Secretariat’s information, on November 16, 2009, Chapters I, VII, VIII, and IX of the Judgment were published in the newspaper “La Prensa,” and on December 21, 2009, they were also published in the newspaper “Crónica.” Furthermore, the State indicated that according to the National Bureau of Official Records for the Republic of Argentina, on December 2, 2009, the same paragraphs were published in the Official Gazette. The State supplied the Tribunal with copies of these publications. 8 Certified record from the Argentine National Judiciary of February 5, 2010 (file of annexes accompanying the case file on monitoring compliance, vol. I, pg. 1). 9 Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, Considering Clause fourteen; and, Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Considering Clause twenty-one.