13 inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as […] forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.”23 48. That the Court finds that the decision rendered by the Civil Division (supra Having Seen No. 12) is inconsistent with the duty of the State to investigate, indentify and eventually punish those responsible for the unlawful acts committed against Trujillo-Oroza in the light of the provisions set forth in operative paragraph three of the Judgment on reparations and costs (supra Having Seen No. 2) delivered in the instant case. 49. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal considers that up to date Bolivia has failed to comply with the duty to investigate, identify and, in turn, punish those responsible for the disappearance of Trujillo-Oroza. Thus, it is imperative that the State adopt forthwith the necessary measures to ensure prompt and full compliance with said obligation. * * * 50. That, in the proceedings on the merits of this case, the State acknowledged its international liability for the human rights violations perpetrated against José Carlos TrujilloOroza and his family. 51. That the Court considers that the state acknowledgment of liability should be translated into a prompt and effective compliance with the orders of the Tribunal such as the reparations. The State should be consistent with the acknowledgment of liability, and it should – based on said acknowledgment, on the Judgment of the Court and, above all, on the obligation to respect and guarantee rights undertaken by its sovereign decision when it ratified the American Convention – refrain from repeating acts amounting to human rights violations and maintaining situations which are incompatible with the Convention, such as impunity. On the contrary, the State should act in accordance with its acknowledgment of liability and, therefore, with its international obligations, and comply with the Judgment delivered against it, making reparations to the victims in due proportion to the damage inflicted and adopting the necessary measures to secure that similar events do not happen again. It is worth mentioning that the initial sense of reparation that the acknowledgment brings to the victims and their next of kin fades away as state authorities remain inactive and fail to redress the damage caused.24 * * * 52. That in monitoring compliance with unfulfilled paragraphs of the Judgment delivered in this case, the Court assesses the high usefulness of the hearing held to this effect, which has been made evident in the good will and cooperative spirit shown by the parties. The Court will further consider the general status of compliance with the pending paragraphs of the Judgment on reparations and costs delivered in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 2,) once the pertinent information is received. 23 Cf. Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 106. In the same regard, Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paras. 41 and 44. 24 Cfr. Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, November 16, 2009, Considering clause No. 18.