7 Mr. Juan Valencia-Osorio be arrested by the State authorities, this Court considers that the truth of the events in this case has been known. 9. That, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court notes that Mr. Juan Valencia Osorio is on the run as reported by the State (supra Having Seen clauses 5(a) and 8(a)). That the Court warns that three years have elapsed since he has been fugitive and that the State has reported the creation of an “Expediting Committee” to arrest him (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(a)). That the Court affirms the Judgment issued in the instant case, particularly that "[i]n cases of extra-legal executions, it is essential for the States to effectively investigate deprivation of the right to life and punish all those responsible, especially when State agents are involved, as failing to do so would create, within the environment of impunity, conditions for this type of facts to occur again, which is contrary to the duty to respect and ensure the right to life.”4 Therefore, the Court urges the State to have all the measures adopted to arrest Mr. Valencia-Osorio in order to fully comply with the Court’s order in operative paragraph No. 5 of the Judgment of November 25, 2003. 10. That pursuant to Considering clauses 6, 7 and 8 hereof, the Court considers that the State has complied with Operative paragraph 6 of the Judgment, which provides for the obligation to remove all material and legal obstacles and mechanisms that prevent those responsible from being punished. 11. That the Court acknowledges the information provided by the State regarding the efforts made as to the Amparo Proceedings bill and the creation of the "International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala" (supra Having Seen clauses No. 5(b)). 12. That according to the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission’s statements regarding the obligation to provide human rights and International Humanitarian Law training courses for the Army and Police staff (supra Having Seen clauses No. 5(c), 6(f), 9(c), and 10(c)), the Court considers that the State has complied with Operative paragraph No. 10 of the Judgment of November 25, 2003. 13. That according to the State, the representatives and the Commission as regards the creation of the “Myrna Mack non-reimbursable Financial Aid Programme” (supra Having Seen paragraphs 12, 13 and 14), the Court considers that Operative paragraph 11 of the Judgment has been complied with. 14. That the State and the representatives have informed that commemorating Myrna Mack-Chang has been placed at the new offices of (supra Having Seen clause No. 3 and 4), pursuant to the Judgment in Therefore, the Court considers that the twelfth Operative paragraph of the has been fully complied with. a plaque AVANCSO this case. Judgment 15. That in monitoring comprehensive compliance with the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of the instant case, and after examining the information provided by the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the victim’s representatives and next of kin in their briefs on compliance with reparations (supra “Having Seen” paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 12, 13 and 14), the Court has confirmed 4 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156.