4 A) Investigation of the events of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre in order to identify, prosecute, and possibly punish those responsible (operative paragraph one of the Judgment) 6. In its report of January 7, 2010, the State expressed that the investigators assigned to the Human Rights Prosecutor's Office are conducting “the necessary proceedings to identify and locate the persons that, as civil patrol members and military officers […], participated in the acts. Therefore, documents are being gathered to identify the victims of the massacre and the persons who allegedly took part in it”. Moreover, the State informed on the actions taken by the Office of the Public Prosecutor during 2009. It mentioned that on December 10, 2009, it presented a proposal before the Judges of the Criminal Chamber to implement the judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court against the State of Guatemala and that, at a later date, a second meeting was held at the seat of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice on December 11, as well as at the offices of the Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la Política del Ejecutivo en materia de derechos humanos [Presidential Commission for Coordination of the Executive Branch’s Policy on Human Rights Issues] (hereinafter “COPREDEH”) on December 23, 2009, in order to look for "the best means to make progress with the judgments." 7. The representatives referred to “the scant information that the State is forwarding regarding the steps conducted so far in the investigation of the case.” They expressed that said steps “were conducted on March 3, 2009, yet when the [State] report was presented, the results of the aforementioned steps were unknown, and no new steps had been taken to progress with the investigation, apart from submitting the correspondence”. Moreover, they mentioned that the victims consider that “the lack of willingness shown by the State to make progress with [this] investigation is evident.” The representatives also expressed the need for COPREDEH "to participate in the twofold follow-up and information process with the Office of the Public Prosecutor, regarding the need to make progress in the investigation of the case, and also provide the victims and their representatives with information, opening the channel between [said actors] that can be used to inform about the progress in the investigation and, also, encourage new steps”. Lastly, they suggested that a detailed report be requested from the State on the results of the steps taken to date. 8. Moreover, in its observations of May 12, 2010, the Commission affirmed that “the State fails to present updated information on the progress made in the investigations” and it reiterated that the information “does not evidence actual compliance with the obligation to investigate as part of the process of monitoring compliance with the judgment.” The Commission indicated that “more than five years and eight months after the delivery of the Judgment, [...] it notes that the situation verified by the Court in the merits proceeding of the case has not changed.” Therefore, it considered it was essential to reiterate that the State must comply with the reparation measure ordered in relation to the implementation of diligent investigations in order to punish those responsible. 9. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that the State has only repeated information on the investigation that it had already presented in this monitoring compliance process, hence it has not presented updated information as requested in the Order of Court of July 1, 2009. This Tribunal notes that, following the delivery of the Judgment in the instant case, the State has not taken steps to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation, in accordance with the standards set by