Risk Court of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Inter-American Court stresses that, on February 9, 10 and 12, 2010, three of those allegedly responsible for the facts were arrested, and on March 3, 2010, an individual who, at that time of the massacre was a Second Lieutenant in the Guatemalan Army, came forward voluntarily, and was implicated in the proceedings. In addition, the Court takes notes that the Public Prosecution Service requested the extradition of three of those who were possibly responsible for the facts, who were detained in the United States of America, but that, to date, other defendants have not been arrested because they appear to have left Guatemala. 14. The Court recalls that, in paragraphs 233, subparagraphs (a) to (f), 234 and 235 of its judgment, it established the criteria to be followed during the investigation of the facts in this case. In addition, the Court finds that, even though the State has taken different measures to arrest those allegedly responsible, it must make every effort to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations declared in the judgment, because, more than 28 years after the facts occurred, impunity still exists in this case. Based on the foregoing, the Court reiterates to the State its obligation to intensify its efforts and take all appropriate actions as soon as possible in order to make progress in the corresponding investigations. Thus, this Court considers it essential that the State present complete, detailed and updated information on the implementation of the investigation, the measures taken and their results in compliance with the judgment. B) Obligation to adopt the necessary measures to amend the Law on Amparo, Habeas Corpus and Constitutionality in Guatemala (tenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 15. The State advised that “the amendments to the Law on Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Constitutionality […] must be approved [by] at least two-thirds of all the members of the Congress of the Republic and, following their approval on third reading, they must be submitted to the consideration of the Constitutional Court.” In addition, it reported that, on March 28, 2008, it had forwarded the favorable opinion of the Special Justice Sector Reform Commission on bill No. 3319, which amends the said law, to the Constitutional Court. However, the State indicated that, “considering that bill No. 3319 did not include some important aspects to be amended, Congress, presented bill No. 3942 to complement it.” This bill, which was filed before a plenary session of Congress, was not approved on third reading. The State noted that “it appears that the Supreme Court of Justice is drafting another bill to amend the law in question; further information on this matter will be provided in due course.” 16. In this regard, the representatives observed that “although [they are] aware that the amendment of laws, especially an [amendment] with the characteristics of the Law on Amparo, requires an open and participatory process of consultation and discussion, the State is obliged to adopt measures to ensure that the amendment is adopted within a reasonable period of time.” They considered that the State’s report was “omissive with regard to the measures aimed at guaranteeing the effective use of the remedy of amparo, while its amendments are discussed and approved.” 17. In its observations, the Commission indicated that “it appreciates the initiatives adopted by the State.” However, it observed that “more than a year has gone by since the judgment was notified and there have been no specific results regarding compliance with this obligation.” In addition, it indicated that “the information provided by the State with regard to bill No. 3319 was presented in the [merits] 6