verified “the lack of basic training of prison guards” and, therefore, considered that it was “very important that, over and above the basic training, training is provided on human rights issues.” In addition, it stated that “indicators could be established for [the] measures of non-repetition ordered by the Court, and […] much more specific information could be provided” on these measures. c) Considerations of the Court 14. First, it should be indicated that, following the Order of February 6, 2008 (supra having seen paragraph 2), the State submitted written reports on three occasions, in 2008, 2009 and 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 3). On several occasions, the Secretariat urged the State to present information (supra having seen paragraph 6). In this regard, on July 6, 2012, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat asked the State to present a detailed report in which it referred to the measures taken to comply with the two elements of the Judgment that remained pending. It repeated this request on August 24 and November 13, 2012, and on January 17, 2013. 15. Regarding the State’s failure to submit this report despite the various reminders that were sent to it in this regard (supra having seen paragraph 6), it should be noted that “[t]he State’s failure [to provide a report] is contrary to its obligation to comply with the measures of reparation ordered by the Court at the domestic level, and to inform the InterAmerican Court about the steps taken to execute them, and also denies the right of access to international justice of the victims and beneficiaries of the said reparations. 4 16. In relation to the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment, concerning the investigation of the facts (supra having seen paragraph 2), during the hearing the State reported on the actions started in 2000 that concluded with the dismissal of the case against the individuals who had been indicated as those possibly responsible (supra considering paragraph 4). The information presented does not reveal that other proceedings have been opened to investigate the facts of the case. 17. As regards the ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 2), the Court notes that, at the hearing, the State recognized that there are different structural shortcomings in the Honduran prison system, but also provided information on the adoption of different laws and regulations, as well as actions that would help improve this situation. In this regard, the Court notes, in particular, the information provided by the State on the enactment of the Penitentiary System Act on May 8, 2012, and that the State has made a diagnosis of the 24 prisons that exist across the country (supra considering paragraph 7). In addition, the State informed of progress in providing medical attention and in the establishment of new prisons (supra considering paragraph 8). Furthermore, it asserted in writing that the topic of human rights had been added to the program of studies for “candidates for prison guards” (supra considering paragraph 9). 18. Despite the above-mentioned progress, the Court also notes that the representatives and the Commission stated that different problems exist, including the absence of information on the prisons, such as budgetary and structural insufficiencies, overcrowding, and inadequate food for those deprived of liberty, as well as inadequate access to health 4 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006, eleventh considering paragraph, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of February 20, 2012, eighth considering paragraph. 5