by the representatives of the Public Prosecution Service on October 9, 2009. On April 13, 2010, the Court of Appeal of the Vargas Criminal Judicial Circuit declared “admissible the appeals filed by both parties and, therefore, reversed the decision and ordered that a new public oral trial be held, releasing the only official who ha[d] been tried and convicted for the facts of this case.” On May 20, 2010, the First Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Vargas State “began a new oral and public trial.” In this regard, the representatives observed that although “the case was already experiencing a delay of justice due to the time that has elapsed and the numerous delays in the proceedings, the annulment of the trial court’s judgment constituted yet another way of reinforcing the mechanisms of impunity.” With regard to the criminal investigations into the disappearances of Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández, the representatives reported that their closure ordered by the 74th Prosecutor of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on May 14, 2004, continued and that, subsequently, the case file had been forwarded to the 62nd National Prosecutor with Full Competence of the Public Prosecution Service on May 14, 2007, “with no change in this situation following the judgment delivered by the Court, and without taking into account the requests of the victims’ next of kin to continue the investigations.” Furthermore, “the Public Prosecution Service ha[d] not conducted any investigative activity aimed at collecting new evidence that would enable the proceedings to be re-opened.” 8. Regarding the information presented by the State, the Commission assessed positively the advances in the investigation into the disappearance of Oscar Blanco Romero and awaited updated information on the result of the appeal against the judgment. However, it expressed concern about the lack of information on the investigation into the forced disappearances of Messrs. Hernández Paz and Rivas Fernández following the delivery of this Court’s judgment. Lastly, it asked the Court to reiterate to the State its obligations concerning this aspect of the judgment and to require the State to present information on any procedural activities that may have occurred following its delivery. 9. In paragraph 94 of the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1), the Court established that impunity reigned with regard to the facts of this case.6 In this regard, it reminded the State of its obligation “to combat this situation by all available means because impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.” However, from the information submitted by the parties, particularly by the representatives, the Court observes that although some progress has been made in the investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. Blanco Romero, the only certain fact is that, at May 2010, a new trial had been ordered, without any information on the present status of the oral proceedings or whether judgment has been handed down. Regarding the investigations into the forced disappearances of Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández, the Court observes that no real progress has been made that would permit authority in relation to the other officials of the Prevention and Intelligence Services Sectoral Directorate General (DISIP) and, consequently, he should have been aware of all the actions of his subordinate officials; for example, the arbitrary detentions carried out by [the individual sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in the said decision].” In addition, they indicated that he had “an obligation to supervise his subordinates.” 6 The Court has defined impunity as “the entire absence of investigation, pursuit, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for the violation of the rights protected by the American Convention.” Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 31, 2011.. Series C No. 232, footnote 193. 4