4 General’s Office would perform a series of proceedings, but warned about the hindrances they would face given the lapse of time since occurrence of the events. Lastly, they remarked that they have not received any information on the procedures carried out by the Attorney General's Office since that date. 11. That at the private hearing, the representatives added that, “there are no legal obstacles in Venezuela to progress on the investigations in a case such as El Amparo.” They stated their satisfaction for the political willingness reflected by the State, and its commitment to submit a schedule of compliance to the Court. 12. That the Inter-American Commission appraised the willingness to reactivate the investigation in the instant case as expressed by the State. Consequently, the Commission considered that from that moment on, the State had made a commitment to progress on the investigations diligently and to originate results in a very short term. The Commission remarked that the State mentioned that those responsible for the events have been fully identified “therefore, the investigations should not entail more complexity”. Moreover, the Commission stated that “it expects that in these proceedings, the survivors and the relatives of the victims will have access to the progress made in the investigations and that the State will continue reporting [on such progress] to the Court in a timely fashion”. Lastly, the Commission suggested to the State to translate such commitment into the drafting and submission of an activity schedule for the investigation in order to obtain “any actual expectations […] in the short or medium term”. 13. That the Court reminds that upon proceedings on the merits of the case, more than fourteen years ago, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the human rights of fourteen murdered victims and two surviving victims.6 Later on, the Court considered in its Judgment on reparations that, given the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, "the facts described in the application were [deem]ed proven.”7 14. That the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State should be translated into prompt and effective compliance with the orders of the Court by means of reparation measures. The state should be consistent with the acknowledgment made, and it is mandatory –given such acknowledgment, the Judgment of the Court and, above all, the duties to respect and guarantee certain rights undertaken by sovereign power upon ratifying the American Convention- not to repeat acts of violation and not to support situations that are contrary to the Convention, as in the case of impunity. On the contrary, the State should act in consistency with such acknowledgment and, consequently, its international obligations and should comply with the Judgment passed against it, providing reparation to the victims in proportion to the damage caused and adopting any measures necessary to avoid repetition of similar events. Note, also, that the initial reparation content that an acknowledgment may represent to the victims and their relatives may vanish with the lapse of time, if State authorities remain inactive and fail to redress the damage caused.8 15. That the lack of justice is one of the main reasons for the victims to resort to the Inter-American system. Similarly, the order to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and discover the truth of the events is one of the essential decisions contained in the judgments of the Court, since it entails a moral satisfaction to the victims; it allows to 6 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C No. 19, para. 20. 7 Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 13. 8 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 16, 2009, Considering clause No. 18; and Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 16, 2009, Considering clause No. 51, and Case of MonteroAranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering clause No. 14.