14 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,” (operative paragraph five and paragraphs 120 and 121 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations)4; and f) to officially name an educational institution in Santa Cruz after José Carlos Trujillo Oroza (operative paragraph six and paragraph 122 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations). 9. After examining the information provided by the State, by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin in their briefs of compliance with the reparations ordered (supra Having Seen 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17), the Court finds that it does not have sufficient information on the following points whose compliance is still pending: a) the State’s obligation to “take all necessary measures to locate the mortal remains of the victim and deliver them to his next of kin, so that they can bury him appropriately” (operative paragraph one and paragraphs 115 and 117 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations); b) criminalization of forced disappearance in Bolivia’s domestic legal system (operative paragraph two and paragraph 98 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on Reparations). It should be noted here that as of the date of issuance of the Judgment on reparations the bill to criminalize forced disappearance was passed by the House of Deputies on the first round of debate and that in that Judgment the Court ruled that this reparation will only be considered complete when the draft becomes a law of the Republic and enters into force, which must occur within a reasonable time; c) to investigate, identify and punish those responsible for the wrongful acts to which this case refers (operative paragraph three and paragraphs 109 to 111 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations); d) to hold a public ceremony with the victim’s next of kin present, to officially assign the name of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza to an education center in the city of Santa Cruz (operative paragraph six and paragraph 122 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations). Here, the Court would like to note that the State has taken administrative steps to assign José Carlos Trujillo Oroza’s name to an educational center in Santa Cruz. However, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether the public ceremony with the victim’s family in attendance has been held; and e) payment to reimburse costs and expenses to CEJIL (operative paragraph nine and paragraph 129 of the February 27, 2002 Judgment on reparations). 4 In paragraph 121 of the Judgment on reparations, the Court held that “[a]mong the measures alluded to, the State should comply with Article VIII of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which forms part of its legislation, in the sense that “[t]he States Parties shall ensure that the training of public law-enforcement personnel or officials includes the necessary education on the offense of forced disappearance of persons.”