6 16. In addition, the Court has previously held that the order to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and uncover all the facts of a case is one of the essential decisions contained in the judgments of the Court, as it entails emotional redress for the victims, allows them to emotionally overcome the violations, reestablishes social relations, helps avoid repetition of similar violations and eliminate the power that perpetrators might have, and entails the administration of justice through the imposition of the appropriate consequences under the law, punishing those who deserve to be punished and providing reparation to those who are entitled to it.8 17. When judgment is passed after the international proceedings come to a close, it is necessary for the State to avoid the recurrence of the acts that led to the legal action. The judgment and the reparations ordered therein should provide a new framework and a new vision in order to overcome in an effective and timely manner the problems identified. In this regard, it is essential that all government bodies and agencies cooperate with each other, both by providing information and by taking such steps as may be within their purview under domestic law in order to comply with such reparations.9 18. The Court notes that said obligation had to be complied with within a reasonable time. Based on the information provided so far, even though five years have elapsed since the entry of the Judgment and almost seventeen years since the beginning of the court investigation, the State’s blatant and persistent inaction has been the order of the day, and even the State has admitted the lack of progress in said proceedings. In this connection, the Court notes that the procedural steps reported by El Salvador (supra Considering clause No. 12), such as the testimony of the former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces and the former Vice Minister of Defense, were already informed to this Tribunal in October 2008,10 and to date, no evidence has been provided to suggest that they have resulted in some progress in the investigation. On the other hand, the Court appreciates the State’s commitment to expedite the response of the Ministry of National Defense to the request made by the President of El Salvador to provide the names of the officers that participated in “Operation CleanUp”. Still, the Court notes that the request for information about the officers in the units that participated in said operation had already been made and reported to this Court in 2006;11 however, to date, that information has not been obtained. Further, the Court points out that these steps have been taken on motion of the aggrieved party, and not on the initiative of the authorities in charge of the investigation. 19. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that it is essential for the State to adopt specific measures to promptly and fully comply with its obligation to investigate into the facts of the case, identify and punish those responsible and conduct a genuine search for the victims. The State must also ensure that the courts fulfill their duty and effectively seek to establish the truth and determine the ensuing legal consequences, without depending on the representatives to move the proceedings along. Moreover, 8 Cf. Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering clause No. 20. 9 Cf. Case of Molina-Theissen, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 24. 10 Cf. State’s Report of October 10, 2008 (record of compliance monitoring proceedings, Volume III, page 1099). 11 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 6, Having Seen clauses No. 5(j) and 6(j) and Considering clause No. 12(a).