4 23. On May 8, 1996, the Commission received the State’s reply, indicating that, in its opinion, “it would not be necessary to conduct a friendly settlement process”. 24. On June 24, 1996, the Commission sent a note to the State asking it about the status of the corresponding judicial proceedings in the domestic jurisdiction. 25. On July 8, 1996, the State presented a communication to the Commission transmitting a copy of a note from the Presidential Coordinating Committee for the Executive’s Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) addressed to the petitioners. On July 9, 1996, the petitioners were sent the pertinent parts of this communication. 26. The petitioners replied to the State on July 23, 1996, and on August 12, 1996, they sent a copy of this reply to the Commission. 27. On July 23, 1996, the Commission requested specific additional information and documentation from the State to assist them in their examination of the petition. On August 29, 1996, Guatemala responded to this request and forwarded the required documents. 28. On October 1, 1996, the State sent the Commission additional information in reply to the note of July 23, 1996. This information was forwarded to the petitioners on October 8, 1996. 29. During its 93rd session, in a meeting held on October 16, 1996, the Commission adopted Report No. 33/96, in which it declared that the petition presented in this case was admissible, and declared [t]hat, having seen the information and the observations that have been presented, the State of Guatemala violated the human rights of the child and the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, and to a fair trial and judicial protection embodied in Articles 4, 5, 7, 19, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and failed to comply with its obligations stipulated in Article 1. That the State of Guatemala violated Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 30. Furthermore, in the said report, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State: [t]hat […] it should carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the facts denounced so that the circumstances and the responsibility for the violations that occurred may be fully established in relation to the crimes committed against Anstraum [Aman] Villagrán Morales, Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and [Jovito] Josué Juárez Cifuentes. That […] it should adopt the necessary measures to submit those responsible for the violations that are the subject of this case to the appropriate judicial proceeding, which should be founded on a complete and effective investigation of the case and include a careful examination of all the pertinent evidence, with absolute observance of the law and due process. That […] it should remedy the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including payment of a fair compensation to the next of kin of Anstraum [Aman] Villagrán Morales, Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and [Jovito] Josué Juárez Cifuentes.