5 negligently investigate the facts in this case; b) none of the provisions in the judgment on reparations that refer to the process of investigation of the illegal burial of the corpses in the mass graves in the Cementerio General del Sur and to identification of the remains of the victim have yielded concrete results; c) the document by the State does not contain any evidence that it has trained its armed and police forces on principles and rules for protection of human rights and on the limits to which they must submit; d) the State has not complied with the duty to publish several parts of the judgments on the merits and on reparations in the official gazette and in a major national daily, and e) the State has not contacted the victims and their next of kin to set a timetable for payments to comply with operative paragraphs six, seven, eight, and ten of the judgment on reparations. 6. The September 15, 2003 note by the State, in which it requested an extension until November 18, 2003 to submit its report on the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations in this case. 7. The September 17, 2003 note by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) in which, under instructions by the Court, it granted the State the extension of the deadline as requested, subject to no further extensions. 8. The September 26, 2003 brief by the representatives, in which they stated that: a) to date, fourteen years after the facts of the Caracazo, the 44 cases brought before the inter-American system for protection of human rights are in the preliminary or investigative phase, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office has only taken concrete steps in two cases, pertaining to the murders of Luis Manuel Colmenares and Crisanto Mederos; b) the next of kin of the victims have received no official information on the whereabouts of their beloved ones, and there are still 65 exhumed remains from the mass graves of the sector of the Cementerio General del Sur called “La Peste” that have neither been identified nor delivered to their next of kin; c) they are unaware of any steps taken by the State to educate and train the members of the security agencies and armed corps regarding respect for and protection of human rights and restrictions in the use of firearms; d) the State has not published the judgments on the merits and on reparations in the official gazette nor in a nationwide daily, and e) the State has not paid the compensations for pecuniary reparations. 9. The November 18, December 8 and 15, 2003, January 26 and February 3, 2004 notes by the State, in which it reported on the steps that it was taking to comply with the pecuniary reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court, and on publication in the official gazette of the excerpts of the judgments issued by the Court on November 11, 1999 and August 29, 2002 in the instant case. 10. The January 27, February 12 and 16, 2004 briefs by the representatives, in which they pointed out that: a) since the judgment on reparations was issued there have been no substantive changes in the situation of the domestic proceedings in the cases pertaining to the Caracazo; b) despite the steps they have taken, the next of kin of the victims have still not had access to reliable information on the events, the missing persons, or the remains of their beloved ones; c) the State has implemented no human rights training program for security forces, and it has not adjusted the operational plans to address public order disturbances, and d) the State has begun to take certain steps to pay the pecuniary reparations, but to date they have not been paid. The representatives asked the Court, as part of its oversight functions, “to support the request by the representative of the victims for the Venezuelan State