5 to submit a report; thereafter, the relatives would agree on a place and a date to receive the remains for their burial. In turn, the representatives asserted that the exhumation was made on August 24, 2004, and that the Dirección General de Medicina Forense (General Directorate of Forensic Medicine) did not deliver the remains on October 15, 2004, as it had been previously agreed upon. Based on the above, the Court notes that 13 years have elapsed from the date of the victim’s execution, more than two years from the date of the Judgment of the Court and more than one year from the date of exhumation of the victim's mortal remains; however, the State has not delivered the remains to the relatives in the place agreed by them. It is essential that the State take the necessary actions to make delivery and facilitate burial of the victim’s remains, according to the provisions of the judgment of the Court, as the reasonable time to do so has already elapsed. […] 14. That the Court will consider the general issues regarding compliance with the Judgment of preliminary objections, merits and reparations of June 7, 2003, once the pertinent information on the measures pending execution is received. THEREFORE, The Court [...] Declare[d]: 1. That, pursuant to Considering clause number eight of this Order, the State has partially complied with the provisions of operative paragraph number thirteen of the Judgment of preliminary objections, merits and reparations delivered by the Court on June 7, 2003, for it publicly acknowledged its liability for the events in the instant case. 2. That it will not close the proceedings conducted for monitoring compliance with the following unfulfilled obligations, to wit: a) The obligation to continue to effectively investigate the facts in the instant case, to identify those responsible, both the direct perpetrators and the instigators, as well as possible accessories after the fact, and to punish them administratively and criminally as appropriate (operative paragraph no. 10); b) The obligation to allow the victim’s next of kin to gain full access and capacity to act, at all stages and levels of said investigations, and to make the results of said investigations known to the public (operative paragraph no. 10); c) The obligation to transfer the mortal remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez to the place chosen by his next of kin, at no cost to them (operative paragraph no. 11); d) The obligation of the State to implement a record of detainees that enables control of legality of detentions (operative paragraph no. 12); e) The obligation of the State to publish in the official gazette Diario Oficial and in another national-circulation daily, the operative paragraphs and the chapter pertaining to proven facts of the Judgment of June 7, 2003 (operative paragraph no. 13); f) The obligation of the State to deposit the compensation ordered in favor of the girls, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez and Norma Iveth Sánchez, in their name in an investment at a solid Honduran banking institution, in United States dollars or their equivalent in Honduran currency under the most favorable financial conditions allowed by banking practice and legislation (operative paragraph no. 18); g) The obligation of the State to pay the total amount ordered by the Court as compensation for pecuniary damage (operative paragraph no. 8); h) The obligation of the State to pay the total amount ordered by the Court as compensation for non-pecuniary damage (operative paragraph no. 9);