8 14. The brief of October 15, 2004, wherein the representatives requested an extension to submit their comments on the State’s August 23, 2004 report, and on the June 3, 2004 briefs and the two briefs the State submitted on September 17, 2004 (supra Having Seen 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13). 15. The October 20, 2004 note where, following the President’s instructions, the Secretariat informed the representatives that the requested extension had been granted; the new deadline was to be October 25, 2004. The Secretariat also extended the deadline for the Commission to submit its comments; the new deadline was November 9, 2004 (supra Having Seen 13 and 14). 16. The November 2, 2004 brief and its attachments, wherein the representatives sent their comments on the State’s August 23, 2004 report, its brief of June 3, 2004, and its two briefs of September 17, 2004 (supra Having Seen 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15). In those comments they stated the following: a) concerning compliance with the obligation to locate the victim’s mortal remains and deliver them to his next of kin, the creation of the InterInstitutional Council to Solve Forced Disappearances “is not only important but also necessary for truth and justice for Bolivia; however, this measure alone will not suffice to discover José Carlos Trujillo’s mortal remains and deliver them to his next of kin […, therefore] the State must also take concrete measures, such as exhumations in places where the body [of the victim] might have been thrown. To do this, such sites must first be located through investigation and inquiry.” Also, the Council does not have resources, a work program, an investigative team, or a timetable for exhumations. In other words, thus far no measure has been taken for the general purpose of discovering or finding the remains of disappeared persons; also no concrete steps have been taken to locate the whereabouts of José Carlos Trujillo”; b) concerning the criminalization of forced disappearance in the Bolivian legal system, the representatives applaud the “effort that the Chief Executive is making to comply with this point in the Judgment. [...] This measure of reparation shall be considered to have been discharged once the law enters into force, which must happen within a reasonable period of time”; c) concerning the obligation to investigate, identify and punish those responsible for the wrongful acts to which this case refers, they stated that “they are pleased with the disciplinary investigation of the thirty-eight judicial officials from Santa Cruz [...I]t is their understanding that the disciplinary investigations mean that the self-disqualifications by officers of the court refusing to take up the case are not being accepted; these selfdisqualifications have delayed the already belated criminal prosecution of those responsible for these offenses. [...Furthermore], the constant turnover of judges presiding over this case in the domestic courts has made the proceedings unsteady and left the victim’s next of kin with a sense of uncertainty.” They also expressed concern over the fact that no “special prosecutor was assigned to the case; […] at the present time the prosecutor assigned to the case is the same one assigned to all the cases being heard in that court […,] which prevents her from devoting special attention to the case.” And while they regard the indictment issued on June 7, 2004 for the