4 adopting all the measures that are necessary so that similar acts are not repeated. It is worth emphasizing that, in addition, the initial reparative value that an acknowledgment may have for the victims and their next-of-kin goes away as time goes by if the State authorities remain inactive and do not repair the damage caused.9 12. Given the foregoing, the Court requests that the State present complete, detailed, and updated information on all of the actions taken to investigate the facts in this case. In particular, it is the State’s responsibility to inform the Court on the number and characteristics of the procedural steps that are being put forth to investigate the facts in question, as well as the dates and specific results of the efforts it has taken to identify those responsible for the crimes. In addition, the State must submit to the Court a copy of the main documents related to these procedural steps. B) Regarding the obligation to proceed immediately with the search and locating of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín (Operative Paragraph 7 of the Judgment) 13. The State reported that “initiative number 3590, the Ley de la Comisión para la Búsqueda de Personas, Víctimas de la Desaparición Forzada y otras formas de Desaparición [Law on the Commission for the Search of Victims of Forced Disappearance and Other Missing Persons] is making its way through the Guatemalan Congress.” The State also reported that as part of the committee begun at the Presidential Commission on Human Rights (COPREDEH in Spanish) together with representatives of the Guatemalan International Humanitarian Law Commission (COGUADIH in Spanish), they have planned to study the creation of a “Temporary Committee for the Search for Persons Missing during Internal Armed Conflict.” According to the State, “a discussion is ongoing between [g]overnment, civil society, and [the International Committee of the Red Cross] for a proposal that provides for, at least”: (a) “[a] unified registry of missing persons and possible burial sites,” (b) “[a] plan to coordinate the exhumation of victims’ remains and to deliver them to their families,” (c) “[t]he creation of a national communication policy that for all families who are currently searching for a missing loved one,” (d) “[t]he implementation of a permanent and sustainable psychosocial support system,” (e) “[t]he identification and participation of competent State authorities to undertake investigations into the body of facts relevant to a person’s disappearance,” (f) “[t]he integration of the information and experience of all civil society organizations that have worked on this issue;” and, (g) “[t]he creation of a budget for its functioning.” 14. The representatives noted that “too much time has passed [without the State’s efforts materializing], which denotes [...] lack of political will.” Additionally, they indicated that “in this legislative period it is going to be difficult to introduce [this] law because in [2011] there will be general elections [in Guatemala].” 15. The Inter-American Commission “observe[d] that from the information presented [by the State], the manner in which [the measures adopted] would have a specific and immediate impact is not evident” in the present case. It also “consider[ed] the search and locating of the victims to be an obligation of the highest priority” and remarked that the Court, when ordering this obligation in its Judgment, specified that the search should start “immediately.” 9 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering Clause 18; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering Clause 14, and Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause 14.