expressed her conformity with the report and signed it, together with her husband [and her legal representative].” In addition, at that meeting “a document was drafted containing a record of the opinions of those present regarding the content of the report, including specific facts of the case that [the representative] had requested the Ministry of the Interior to investigate, and [subsequently] clarify in its official report […].” 5. Thus, regarding the said report from the Ministry of the Interior (supra considering paragraph 4), the State indicated that the Ministry’s Director for the Protection of Rights had asked “the Commander-in-Chief [of the Police] to appoint an official […] with training in human rights so that it could be prepared jointly […].” Accordingly, during a working meeting also held on June 29, 2012, police officer Cristobal Tenorio advised that he had visited “the site of the events, and could see that the Provisional Detention Center where Mr. Vera Vera was detained no longer exists.” In addition, during the said meeting, “the need to clarify certain specific aspects” was noted. Moreover, according to the State, the Ministry of the Interior had asked the Ministry of Justice to provide “all the information it had available on the case in order to prepare a more complete report and [… take] into account the specific aspects that the […representative] had mentioned” (supra considering paragraph 4). A.2. Observations of the representative 6. He indicated that “during a meeting held at the Ministry of Justice, it was observed that […] the report [... presented] did not comply with the obligation to inform the mother [of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera] of the truth of what happened, because it was a summary of the relevant parts of the proceedings before the […] Court […],” and did not answer several questions.3 According to the representative, “[i]n view of this, the Ministry of Justice officials stated that the police had appointed an investigator trained in human rights and they hoped that the Ministry of the Interior would soon proceed to draft the said report.” A.3. Observations of the Inter-American Commission 7. It mentioned that “[e]ven though the State had indicated that the victim [had] expressed her agreement” with the official report presented to her at the meeting of June 29, 2012, the representative “indicate[d] that the report does not comply with the measure of reparation ordered. [… I]n any case, both parties agreed that a new report by the Ministry of the Interior is pending.” Thus, the Commission “consider[ed] that the State must take the appropriate measures to ensure that, in this new report, an official answer is provided to the questions raised by [the] representative, because they precisely reflect the victim’s questions regarding what happened to her son.” A.4. Considerations of the Inter-American Court 8. The State submitted a copy of the report prepared by the Ministry of Justice, presumably in compliance with this measure of reparation, which was “validat[ed]” by 3 According to the representative, the said report “did not answer, for example, questions such as: why the police agents who saw the mob pursuing the victim and heard the shot, only arrested the victim and not those who fired on him; why the Santo Domingo doctors, without a full assessment and examination, decided to discharge him and order his transfer to the police cell; why the doctor in charge of the victim in the police cell issued a report saying that [Mr. Vera Vera was] all right[,] contradicting the medical assessment that indicated the seriousness of his condition and requested his immediate transfer to a hospital; and why the judge opened criminal proceedings against Pedro Vera for theft and did not open a criminal action to investigate those responsible for the shot that resulted in [his] death […].” 3