6 any other dependency, case file […] C-603-96” and “[e]nable the Public Prosecutors’ Office to intervene, so as to carry out all investigations and promote the prosecution and criminal processing so as to effectively determine the people responsible for the violations” stated by the Inter-American Court “and, if applicable, facilitate the punishment […] by the competent jurisdictional body.” The Supreme Court stated that since the State “was not able to use its domestic [l]aw” or “legislation to comply with the international judgment,” “its implementing act has the effect of an extraordinary act of common proceedings,” reason for which the case file was forwarded to the Court of Retalhuleu. d) Based on this reopening of the investigation, the Public Prosecutors’ Office “requested that the statement” offered by Mrs. Jennifer Harbury, wife of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez, “be accepted as a jurisdictional production of a foretaste of evidence.” The State manifested that “through the resolution of March 22, 2010,” issued by the Court of Retalhuleu, “it provisionally accepted” Mrs. Harbury as an “Adhesive Plaintiff.” The State added, inter alia, that the Public Prosecutors’ Office has been preparing “instructions,” a “systematization of statements,” specifying “the hypothesis that there are around 17 defendants,” and that “[...] flow charts have been prepared of the chain of command of soldiers, with which it can be shown which members of the Guatemalan army participated in the disappearance” of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez —all of which coincide with the statements offered by witnesses before the Inter-American System and with the collaboration of the adhesive plaintiff.” Additionally, the State informed that the Public Prosecutors’ Office “holds coordinated meetings with the Plaintiff” to “determine the progress of the investigation and verify possible places where the exhumations can take place to locate the remains of Bámaca Velásquez.” The Court values positively the inter-institutional work of the “Human Rights Team” and considers that the actions of the Public Prosecutors’ Office and the Supreme Court are a first step, ten years after the Judgment on Merits was issued, towards progressing with the investigations ordered by the Inter-American Court in the present case. 10. 1.2. Regarding the closing of the investigation