4 due to the death of the fourth accused, “the Attorney General’s Office undertakes to further on the investigation to establish the identity of those responsible for the events" and that "proceedings remain open". 11. That pursuant to the Judgment on the merits rendered by the Court, judicial authorities “failed to comply with their obligation to promote an adequate investigation and judicial proceedings”, the State held that “Guatemalan domestic legislation does not provide for […] the concept of sham res judicata” and, therefore, “this would lead to legislative amendments, which would result in longer time periods”. 12. That the representatives expressed their “profound frustration in view of the report presented by the State of Guatemala” and held that the judicial procedures mentioned by the State are “the same procedures reported […] in the last written report which, moreover, were appraised by this Court" that "served as basis for the State of Guatemala to be declared responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention”. The representatives added that “for that reason they [cannot] understand how the State […] can claim […] that the investigation was not carried out in accordance with effective legislation, completely disregarding the decisions made by the […] Court”. 13. That the representatives also claimed that “proceedings remain open and no further procedure was carried out after the passing of the Judgment on the merits and the Judgment on reparations" and that "basically, the State has ignored what the Court ordered for the purposes of justice”. In particular, the representatives held that “the Court found in the Judgment that the Tribunals that had appraised the evidence failed to perform their duties in an independent and impartial manner and, therefore, a new proceeding should be initiated”. In this sense, the Court was requested to remind the State of “the need to initiate a new investigation” and for the Court to express an opinion on what had already been established in other Judgments "regarding the sham res judicata or apparent res judicata”, which is based precisely on the "assumption of lack of impartiality [and] independence of the authorities in charge of the investigations and prosecution of those responsible”. 14. That the representatives concluded by making reference to the “circumstance” of “a context where absolute impunity prevails in most of the paradigmatic cases heard by this Court [involving Guatemala]”. Particularly, they indicated that “statistics […] reflect this reality in a convincing manner, for instance, according to the information of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, impunity reaches 98% in reported crimes”, which, according to the representatives, constitutes “an endemic problem” of the State. Furthermore, they stated that “the inefficacy of the justice system […] renders even more urgent a decision by this Court regarding the status of compliance with these Judgments” and that such ruling should be “emphatic upon indicating the need for the State to adopt prompt and effective measures, not only to resume investigations in the instant case, but also to correct structural problems that hinder progress in justice”. 15. That the Commission stated that it “finds that no information was provided on the measures adopted to resume [...], in a diligent manner, the investigations and to establish the appropriate responsibility”. It added that “the matter under investigation does not refer exclusively to the perpetrators of the murder”; the Court established in its Judgment “that the investigators and agents of justice had not met their essential duties” and that in that respect the Commission considers “that the measures required to fight impunity in the instant case include [the implementation of] criminal, administrative or disciplinary measures as required to assess and establish the responsibility of those who consolidated impunity rather than finding justice”. The Commission concluded “that it is necessary to reopen the entire proceeding; not against one person or several non-identified persons