Mercedes Vera Valdez and her representative “by her signature.”4 The State also provided the minutes of the meeting held with the victim and her representative on June 29, 2012, in which it was stipulated that, in its future investigations, the Ministry of the Interior must clarify various aspects that they had indicated.5 9. The Court observes that, in the second operative paragraph of the Judgment, the State was ordered “to adopt, within a reasonable time, the necessary measures for the mother of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera to know what happened to her son […].” As is clear from the Judgment, the case concerns the shooting of Mr. Vera Vera, the medical negligence he suffered after he was shot, and his subsequent death while in State custody, all of which was not formally investigated by the State, as recorded in the Judgment. Thus, “the necessary measures that the State must adopt for the mother of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera to know what happened to her son,” should encompass these three situations. In this regard, the information presented by the State refers mainly to the investigation into the medical attention provided to Mr. Vera Vera after he was shot. Regarding the other two points, as indicated by the State, instructions were only given for State officials to draft “a more complete report and [to take] into account the specific facts referred to by” the representative, which are basically those relating to the shooting of Mr. Vera Vera and his death while in State custody. In this regard, the Court awaits a “more complete” report from the State. 10. Based on the above, the Court considers that the second operative paragraph of the Judgment remains pending compliance. B. Obligation to disseminate the Judgment among the police and prison authorities and the medical personnel in charge of those deprived of liberty (third operative paragraph of the Judgment) B.1. Information from the State 11. It indicated that the Ministry of Justice had “prepared 1,000 informative leaflets” containing, inter alia, the facts of the case, the human rights violations declared in the Judgment, and the standards of human rights protection that must be observed by police and prison authorities, and medical personnel in charge of persons deprived of liberty. Thus, regarding the dissemination of the Judgment among police personnel, the State reported that on June 26, 2012, “[496] leaflets were distributed […] and a brief presentation was made on the requirement that similar facts should not be repeated.” This event counted with the participation of the “Head of the Human Rights Department of the National Education Directorate of the National Police[,as well as …] members of the police, who were instructors on human rights who had been trained under the Ongoing Comprehensive Training Program (PCIC).” This program was created “towards the end of 2009, and is an institutionalized program aimed at providing theoretical and practical training [… on] human rights issues, use of force, and topics related to police work […].” In 2011, 14,296 police agents were trained at the national level. The State provided the Court with a copy of the said information leaflets. 4 “Information on the reconstruction of the truth of the facts as a complementary measure of satisfaction in the case of Vera Vera et al v. Ecuador” of the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship (monitoring file, tome I, folio 348). 5 Cf. “Record of the meeting held between the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship (MJDHC) and the beneficiaries in the case of Vera Vera et al v. Ecuador” (monitoring file, tome I, folios 351 and 352). 4