4 on August 31, 2007, requesting “the notification of pleading to the private prosecutor, [...and] informing that the notification of pleading to the defense was expected to be ordered;” b) criminal proceedings had been commenced against Roxana Sierra-Ramírez, and in such proceedings, a warrant of arrest was pending execution. According to the State “[...] apparently, the defendant shall appear voluntarily before the court;” c) with regard to Mario Roberto Maldonado-Ortega, who had appeared voluntarily before the court, the State reported that a criminal proceeding had been commenced wherein dismissal was ordered for lack of merits. The Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed such decision and the matter was pending resolution before the Court of Appeals; d) a criminal proceeding had been commenced against José Alberto Alfaro-Martinez, in which a commitment order was issued and such matter was pending final resolution before the Court of Appeals and they were expecting that the records of the case be sent to the Court of First Instance; and e) criminal proceedings were commenced against David Abraham Mendoza, Marco Tulio Regalado-Hernández, Mario Maldonado-Ortega, Oscar Francisco Andrade, Leonel Matute-Chávez and José Antonio Martínez, wherein the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that a warrant of arrest be issued against them, but such request was rejected and therefore, an appeal for relief was pending decision (supra Having Seen Clause 2) 7 That the representatives, in their comments to the State report of October 23, 2007, stated that such information made reference to isolated acts within the criminal prosecution, and that they did not reflect significant advances that might lead to the knowledge of the truth about the facts in the instant case. They further stated that: a) with regard to the criminal proceeding against Víctor Hugo Vivas-Lozano, the State reported that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had “formulated conclusions on August 31, 2007.” However, they informed that no report had been made regarding the arguments contained in such conclusions; b) with regard to the criminal proceeding commenced against Roxana Sierra Ramírez, they reported that the warrant of arrest had been pending execution since August 6, 1996 and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office made new requests for such execution on January 14, 2005 and February 9, 2005, and such warrant of arrest was still pending execution and, even more, they also reported that the accused did not submit herself to the incumbent authorities;” and c) with regard to the criminal proceeding against José Alfaro Martínez, the information submitted by the State was confusing since it did not inform the dates on which such acts had been carried out (supra Having Seen Clause 3.) 8. That the Commission, in its comments submitted on January 8, 2008, stated that the information provided by the State was insufficient, since it did not state the dates on which the referred acts were completed, and it also failed to provide a context to determine the relevance or appropriateness of the acts in question.” The Commission further mentioned that the State must provide a detailed report about the investigations carried on, about the investigation leads followed and about their relation to the orders that had been given (supra Having Seen Clause 4.) 9. That due to the fact that the parties have not sent to the Court enough information to evaluate the compliance with operative paragraph eight, the Court considers that the State must submit a detailed report regarding the measures adopted to identify, prosecute and as the case may be, punish all those perpetrators and instigators of the violations committed against the victims, as well as all measures taken to remove obstacles and solve all questions of fact and of law that allow impunity to continue in the instant case (supra Having Seen Clause 1.) *