43 The second document requested was the entry and exit record for motor vehicles, whatever notices or new developments records existed, specifically regarding vehicles used by Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez, and who had authorized the use of those vehicles. This time the Minister replied that said information had been provided to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in 1996. However, they verified that the information received that year referred to the vehicle record of the Presidential General Staff, but not of the Security Department as requested. The third document requested was the file on Myrna Elizabeth Mack Chang at the Security Department of the Presidential General Staff. This time the Minister replied that there was no such file at the Security Department or “Archivo” and that the only existing report on this person was one prepared by Juan Eduardo Contreras, which had already been forwarded. However, on May 8, 2000, the Strategic Analysis Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic published a list of persons that came from the “Archivo,” and one of those names was that of Myrna Mack Chang. They also requested the names, functions and responsibilities of the specialists of the Security Department, of the persons in charge, a description of the functions and responsibilities of the head and deputy head of the Department who were being accused as accessories, and the list of persons who worked for the service, which they did not receive. They also requested an organization chart of the Presidential General Staff and a copy of the book of normal administrative procedures and of the normal operating procedures of the Security Department, but they only received a copy of the manual of the Presidential General Staff. With respect to the third commitment, pertaining to reduction of the negative effects of inappropriate use of remedies, they met with the President of the Constitutional Court, with the Magistrate of the Supreme Court and with the President of the Third Court. Said authorities recognized the excessive use of remedies that obstructed adequate administration of justice, but they deemed that legislative reforms were required to restrict said abusive use of remedies. With respect to commitment four, on compliance with the legal terms granted by the judiciary authorities, specifically the eight days granted to submit evidence, this term was not complied with because there was an amparo remedy still pending resolution. The amparo was decided on August 1, 2000, and the notices were only served on August 29 and 30, despite the fact that the murder of Myrna Mack Chang had been classified as very urgent. Therefore, the verifies reached the conclusion that the first legal term had expired and it was impossible to comply with the second legal term, which would expire in October, because the first one had not occurred within the legal term. As regards commitment five, on the testimony of persons living abroad, no actions at all were taken to obtain said testimony. With respect to commitment six, to promote actions regarding the issue of security of witnesses for the private accuser in case of threats, during the verification period there were no acts of intimidation. Regarding commitment seven, for the Government to investigate and, if there were grounds, to punish those responsible for not supplying the documentation requested of the Ministry of National Defense, at a meeting with the commissioner on August 8, 2002, COPREDEH undertook to conduct an investigation within 30 days on the persons who had not complied with the delivery of documents. However, the commitment was not fulfilled, because COPREDEH did not submit the investigation