4 5. That, with respect to the first operative paragraph of the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), the State reported that the necessary requests to the Attorney General’s Office had been made to initiate the criminal prosecution “[…] of the facts described in the order of the […] Court.” The State added that, to that end, a justice promotion committee had been created, which was responsible for following up on the cases pending before the Court and the Commission, in which “[…] the international responsibility of the State had been determined […] in relation to the duty to investigate and punish those responsible for the human rights violations” (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). 6. That the representatives emphasized the importance of the investigation of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre insofar as it would be, among other things, “[…] an important step toward national reconciliation with the Mayan people […] [and toward] tackling racism and discrimination.” However, two months following notice of the Judgment, the prosecutor’s office in charge of the investigation of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, among other cases, had been dissolved. Subsequently, the representatives informed that the prosecutor’s office that had been created did not have the respective investigation file and that the personnel was not “[…] trained to conduct an investigation of this magnitude.” They added that they were awaiting information on “[…] the progress made and the work […] done by the [p]romotion [c]ommittee as well as on the schedule of the meetings between the prosecutors in charge of the case, the victims and their representatives. Furthermore, they stressed the importance of not conducting a separate investigation of the case “[…] independent of the proceeding pending before domestic courts; rather […] compliance with the [J]udgment [should] strengthen […] said proceedings.” In addition, they stated that there was no investigation plan and that the only step taken was the taking of supplemental witness statements. Finally, they stated that the investigation was one of the most important reasons for bringing the case before the Inter-American System, but that so far no measures had been taken which would suggest that a search for those responsible for the massacre was in place (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). 7. That the Commission stated that it appreciated the efforts made by the State to have the Attorney General’s Office initiate the investigation, as well as the creation of a justice promotion committee within the judicial branch to follow up on the cases that “[…] are pending before the Inter-American Commission and the Court” and requested that the Court require the State to provide information as to whether the Attorney General’s Office was conducting an investigation into the events that took place in the village of Plan de Sánchez through some specialized unit. Furthermore, the Commission expressed “concern over the fact that the State fail[ed] to provide information indicating whether the Attorney General’s Office [wa]s conducting the investigation of the facts surrounding the [m]assacre […]” In addition, it noted that the State had failed to provide information regarding the measures taken by the Attorney General’s Office to investigate, prosecute and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the massacre (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). 8. That, based on the information submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the first operative paragraph of the Judgment. It is therefore essential to call upon the State to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators and masterminds of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). * * *