11 disciplinary investigation had been conducted into the matter. The Commission also pointed out that although the “Bolivian State had reported that on June 7, 2004 the Examining Judge of the town of Warnes had issued an indictment against six suspects,” three of those indicted had requested that the criminal proceedings being prosecuted against them be declared extinguished on the grounds that more than five years had passed since proceedings had commenced and they had still not been closed. This was, they argued, in violation of the third transitory provision of the new Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that cases processed under the previous code of criminal procedure shall be subject to a period of limitations of five years, at the latest, and that judges, either at their own initiative or at the request of a party, shall check whether that five-year period has lapsed; if it has, they shall declare the criminal action statute-bared and close the proceedings. In this regard, the Commission pointed out that on May 12, 2004, Law 2683 was enacted, whose single article amended the third transitory provision of the New Code of Criminal Procedure to read as follows: “[c]auses of action conducted under the previous system shall go forward until their conclusion.” Nevertheless, on September 14, 2004, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia declared Law 2683 unconstitutional. The Commission went on to point out that “inasmuch as the request [by those indicted that the criminal action be declared extinguished] has still not been decided by Bolivia’s domestic courts, [...] it [would] not examine, in detail, the possible consequences of application of these provisions”; d) the Commission reiterated that the “Bolivian State has fully complied” with the measure of reparation ordering it to publish the January 26, 2000 Judgment on merits in the Official Gazette (supra Having Seen 3(a)); e) concerning the obligation to adopt, “in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, […] those measures for the protection of human rights that ensure the free and full exercise of the rights to life, freedom and humane treatment, and to a fair trial and judicial protection, in order to avoid future harmful acts such as those of this case,” “the Commission is of the understanding that the measure of non-repetition ordered by the Court in the instant case still applies, since it is an application of Article 2 of the American Convention.” It pointed out that it was gratified by the measures the State had undertaken and believed that Bolivia “should provide concrete information on the execution and implementation of the programs of which it speaks, as the representatives requested”; f) as for the obligation to officially assign the name of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza to an educational center in the city of Santa Cruz, the Commission was pleased that the Santa Cruz City Council had issued ordinances to that effect. The Commission noted that the representatives did not believe that this measure had been complied with, because the public ceremony was not staged in the presence of the victim’s relatives. It therefore asked the Court to call upon the State “to come to an agreement with all next of kin to settle on the date and time that the ceremony in question should be held”; g) on the matter of payment of compensation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damages to the victim’s mother and siblings, the Commission stated that “the Bolivian State has fully complied with the measures of