7 6. In its June 13, 2001 note, the Secretariat notified the State of the Judgment on reparations, for which reason the term to comply with it expired on December 13, 2001, except with respect to identification of the alleged son of William Otilio González Rivera, for which the Commission and the representatives had up to one year from the date of notification of the judgment,4 that is, until June 13, 2002. 7. After analyzing the information supplied by the State, by the victims or their next of kin or their representatives and by the Commission, the Court deems it indispensable for the State to inform the Court about the following matters with respect to compliance: a) the steps taken to investigate the facts in the instant case and to identify and punish those responsible for what happened to the victims (Operative paragraphs six of the March 8, 1998 Judgment on the Merits and two of the May 25, 2001 Judgment on Reparations); b) the steps taken with respect to transfer of the mortal remains of Pablo Corado Barrientos and their subsequent burial at the place chosen by his next of kin (Operative paragraph three of the May 25, 2001 Judgment on Reparations); c) whether to date any legislative, administrative or other measures have been adopted to ensure the reliability and public nature of the record of detainees (Operative paragraph four of the May 25, 2001 Judgment on Reparations); and d) whether the State had made all payments of compensation for nonpecuniary and pecuniary damage as well as for legal costs and expenses (Operative paragraphs one and five of the May 25, 2001 Judgment on Reparations). 8. Providing sufficient information on compliance with the Judgment is a duty of the State that has been repeatedly established by this Court.5 9. The Court will consider the general status of compliance with its judgments on the merits (March 8, 1998) and on reparations (May 25, 2001) once it receives the aforementioned report by the State and the respective observations of the victims or, if applicable, of their next of kin and their representatives and of the Inter-American Commission. 4 Case of the“White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 135. 5 Cf., Neira Alegría et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2002, Considering nine; El Amparo Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2002, Considering eight; Loayza Tamayo Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, Considering eight; Castillo Páez Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, Considering nine; Garrido and Baigorria Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, Considering eight; Blake Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, Considering nine; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, Considering six and seven; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of June 21, 2002, Considering two; Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of June 6, 2003, Considering ten and twelve; and Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2003, Considering ten.