16 Court on the status of the reports of the National Commission and the ACT and indicate whether it intends to follow their recommendations. If so, the State must ensure that its implementation of those recommendations adheres to the orders contained in Judgment, and it must report on the measures it is undertaking to that end. The State must also submit a detailed schedule for compliance with this obligation. Finally, the Court reminds the State that timely compliance with requests for information is an obligation under Article 68(1) of the Convention (supra Having Seen clauses 9 and 12). d) Duty to guarantee the safety of those Community members who decide to return to Moiwana Village (Operative Paragraph four of the Judgment) 29. The State reported that even though there is no certainty as to the number of members of the Community that wish to return, whenever they do decide to return, the State will guarantee their safety. To that end, police departments in the area have been renovated. 30. The representatives informed the Court that the State’s failure to undertake serious measures “to even minimally investigate the massacre” constitutes a “major source of fear for the victims.” The representatives thus urged concrete action on the State’s part to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the massacre. 31. The Commission highlighted “the fact that the Court intended […] an ongoing dialogue between the parties to form part of the foundation for an eventual return,” and stated that in its Judgment, “the Court [had] required the State to meet with [C]ommunity members on a monthly basis to discuss their plans.” It also noted that the State did not provide specific information on its compliance with this obligation; therefore, it was “unable to conclude that the State ha[d] taken any steps to comply with this [order].” 32. The Court acknowledges the relationship that exists between the different orders of the Judgment and, in particular, the connection between the State’s failure to investigate (supra Considering clauses 11 to 14) and its lack of compliance with the obligation to guarantee the victims a safe return to Moiwana Village. The Court finds, as it did in its last order on compliance (supra Having Seen clause 3, Whereas clause 14), that it is not clear whether the construction or renovation of police stations in the vicinity of Moiwana, as informed by the State, constitute effective measures toward compliance with this obligation. The State has not indicated whether it has adopted or plans to adopt other measures in order to guarantee the Community members of Moiwana Village a safe return. Therefore, the Court finds it necessary to require additional information from the parties on the number of members of the Moiwana Community that wish to return to Moiwana Village and on the measures, other than the renovation of police departments, that the State is implementing in order to ensure their safety. The Court stresses that the security of the members of the Moiwana Community depends, in large part, on the State’s