6 resources and adopt the necessary measures to transfer the mortal remains of Henry Giovanni Contreras and their subsequent interment in the place chosen by the next of kin, the Commission indicated that the measure adopted by the State to arrange a commemorative gravestone in memory of Henry Giovanni did not correspond to the terms of the judgment. The Commission recognized the efforts made by the State to designate an educational center with a name allusive to the victims in this case and the placing of a plaque with their names. Lastly, the Commission expressed its concern, because since the delivery of the judgment on reparations, “despite the evidence and the detailed information resulting from the proceedings both before the inter-American system and the domestic courts, those responsible for the different violations established [in the judgment of the Court] had not been punished, either through criminal proceedings for some of them, or administratively for others.” 13. The comments of the representatives of the victims’ next of kin of November 14, 2003, indicating that the State had complied fully with the judgment on reparations as regards the designation of the educational center with a name allusive to the young victims in this case; that it had complied partially with the financial reparation ordered, even though Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales, beneficiary of the said reparation had still not been found, so that the State had had to deposit the corresponding amount in a current account in his name in a solvent banking institution. Moreover, the representatives considered that the State had complied partially with its obligation to adapt its domestic legislation on child protection, because on July 19, 2003, the Integral Protection of Children and Adolescents Act had entered into force, which, according to non-governmental organizations working in this area, “made substantial progress on the issue, improving the legal status of many girls, boys and adolescents, and generating changes in the structure of the institutions that would monitor compliance with the Act, by creating the Office of the Public Defender of Children and Youth, the Office of the Prosecutor and Courts specializing in children and adolescents, and Courts for adolescents in conflict with the criminal legislation.” The representatives advised that the State was in total non-compliance with the substantial matters of investigation and punishment of those responsible in this case, and that the information forwarded by the State in its last report was totally outdated, because it dated from February 1997. They therefore requested the Court to urge the State “to provide updated information on the investigations that were being conducted or would be conducted, the procedural and legal difficulties faced in order to comply fully with the judgment, the authorities responsible and the material and logistic resources assigned to their work, and details of the judicial proceedings, testimony, investigation orders and all other measures carried out, since the judgment on reparations, to overcome the impunity that existed in this case.” Lastly, with regard to the interment of the remains of Henry Giovanni Contreras, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin expressed their disagreement with the criteria and interpretation of the State, in view of which, it should be considered that the sixth operative paragraph had not been complied with. 14. The note of the Secretariat of November 18, 2003, in which, on the instructions of the President, it requested the State to present information on the measures it had taken to comply with the provision in the judgment on reparations that it should pay US$3.000,00 (three thousand United States dollars) for nonpecuniary damage to Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales. The State was granted until November 27, 2003, with no possibility of extension, to provide the information. CONSIDERING: