3 6. Regarding the obligation to pay Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the costs and expenses (tenth, eleventh and seventeenth operative paragraphs of the judgment), the State advised that it had made the respective payments with the established time frame. 7. In this regard, the representatives advised that the said payments had been duly made to the members of the Portugal family and, consequently, asked the Court to establish that this measure of reparation had been complied with. 8. For its part, the Commission “t[ook] note” that the payment vouchers provided by the State “corresponded to the amounts established by the Court in its judgment.” It therefore considered that this obligation “had been duly complied with by the Panamanian State.” 9. The President takes note of the measures undertaken by the State as regards the payment of the compensation, costs and expenses, an aspect that will be assessed by the Court in plenary session in order to declare full compliance with this decision. * * * 10. With regard to the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in the case and to identify, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible (twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State advised that the criminal proceedings had been re-opened and that “the sworn statements of several witnesses and of the victim, and the penal and the unsworn statements of three of the four accused had been incorporated into this stage of the re-opened case”; that “various documentary and expert evidence” had been incorporated; “confrontations had been conducted,” and “the unsworn statement of Manuel Antonio Noriega, which had been requested from the United States of America via judicial assistance, was awaited.” 11. The representatives argued that “the State had merely presented lists of measures adopted” without “mentioning the existence of a specific line of investigation to explain the connection between the different measures taken.” In addition, they stated that the information presented “does not allow it to be established that there has been any real progress in elucidating the truth about what happed to Heliodoro Portugal.” They added that the reports presented “do not indicate the date on which the said measures had been taken,” which means “that it is not possible […] to determine whether they were taken in compliance with the judgment in the case.” Moreover, they indicated that there had been omissions in the provision of information to Mr. Portugal’s next of kin on the progress of the investigations. 12. The Commission considered that “it was unclear” what the State was referring to when it reported “that, in the context of the investigation, the victim’s sworn statement had been taken.” Furthermore, the Commission observed that “the information provided by the State does not allow it to be established whether the investigation initiated following the re-opening [of the case] and the measures adopted to overcome the shortcomings and irregularities identified in the judgment had been carried out with due diligence.” 13. The President considered that complete and detailed information was required on the status of the investigations that included a copy of the measures taken and an explanation of the current lines of investigation in the proceedings.