4 should “express its political willingness to allow the investigations to be re-opened, granting the civil jurisdiction the authority to conduct the proceedings to determine responsibilities and establish the corresponding penalties.” 18. The note of the Secretariat of October 14, 2005, in which it requested the State to submit, by November 14, 2005, at the latest, any observations it deemed pertinent on the communication of the Commission (supra Having seen paragraph 17), and on the brief of the representatives (supra Having seen paragraph 16), and reiterated the request that it submit information on the measure of reparation pending compliance: “to continue the investigations into the facts of this case and to punish those found responsible.” 19. The report of the State of November 8, 2005, in which it indicated that: (a) “The State would make all the calculations and estimates to establish with exactitude the amount owed for compensation and interest on arrears [...], up until November 15, 2005,” in order to make the agreed payments, and (b) The Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) had commissioned the Forty-ninth Prosecutor “to hear [the case] together with the Prosecutor from the Attorney General’s Office for the Transitory Procedural Regime of the state of Táchira,” […] to uncover new elements of significance for the case.” 20. The communication of the representatives of December 20, 2005, in which they indicated that: (a) On December 2, 2005, the State had paid the sum of US$37,731.20 (thirtyseven thousand seven hundred and thirty-one United States dollars and twenty cents). The “payment was made to 33 of the 40 beneficiaries who had received the payment of compensation in 1998. Four members of the family of Julio Pastor Ceballos did not attend the two meetings that were convened to this end. Four people had died in the time between the payment of the compensation and the payment of the interest on arrears […]. The heirs of the four people who had died were paid the quota […] corresponding to each of the deceased”; (b) The State “had made an effort to convene the beneficiaries to two meetings to make the payment. Notice of the meetings had been published in different regional newspapers and in a newspaper with national circulation, as well as being broadcast by radio; (c) The “amount corresponding to each person who did not attend the meetings was deposited in a bank account where it will remain available until those persons communicate with the bank”; (d) “Having complied with the obligation to pay the interest on arrears, the State of Venezuela has complied with one of the decisions of the judgment on reparations,” and (e) The State continued to fail to comply with its obligation to investigate, to determine responsibilities, and to punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the massacre.