-15- 12. Regarding the Judgment’s order on the State’s obligation to investigate the facts of the case and to identify, prosecute and punish the responsible parties, the State has not supplied sufficient information pertaining to this obligation. The State also has failed to update the Court regarding this aspect of the order in its second report to the Court (supra Having Seen paragraph 9), as advanced in an earlier communication (supra Having Seen paragraph 8). With respect to this, the Court finds it necessary to remind the State of the importance that compliance with this order has for the family members of the victims and the society as whole, as a means to fulfill the right to truth regarding the facts of the attack on the Moiwana village on November 29, 1986. The Representatives stress the unique importance of the investigation for the Moiwana community in a moral and spiritual sense and emphasize that the State’s failure to fulfill this obligation is highly disturbing given its centrality to the denial of justice and perpetuation of impunity regarding most of the violations found by the Court in its Judgment. The Court also recognizes that the Representatives maintain that the failure to investigate the facts and to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties continues to be a major source of fear for the victims and their families (supra Having Seen paragraph 6(d)). 13. The only information provided pertaining to this aspect of the Court’s order is the creation of a Coordination Team by the Attorney General on December 16, 2005, in charge of preparing the investigation and judicial process of several specific punishable acts. The Court finds it regrettable that almost two years after the creation of this body the State has not yet provided any information on concrete measures and progresses achieved. The Representatives emphasize that there is ample documentary and other evidence available to the State which could form the basis of a judicial process (supra Having Seen pararaph 6(e)). Moreover, it is appropriate to remind the State that, as stated in the Judgement, “the effective search for truth is the State’s responsibility, and decidedly does not depend upon the initiative of victims and their family members or upon their submission of evidence” (para. 146). As long as the facts are not clarified and those responsible are not identified, prosecuted and eventually punished, a full reparation of the damages caused to the surviving victims and their family members will not be possible. Concomitantly, without compliance with this obligation, the remains of the victims might not be found, identified and given to their families, and the community will not be able to perform the burial ceremonies according to their traditional customs. Also, if they do not obtain justice they will not be able to return to their ancestral lands, as the victims’ families believe that this failure has caused anger in the spiritual world, which has already manifested itself in the form of illness, disease and misfortune. Furthermore, the lack of justice and information about the events of the attacks to the Moiwana community in November 1986 continue to cause the victims and their relatives to fear for their personal safety, preventing them from returning to their traditional lands. The Court considers that there is no evidence of compliance with Operative Paragraph 1 of the Judgment. * * * 14. In connection with the failure to comply with Operative Paragraph 1 of the Judgment (supra Whereas paragraph 12-13) and with the interrelation that exists between the different orders of the Judgment for full compliance, there is no compliance with Operative Paragraph 4 of the Judgment. The Court finds that there is still no guarantee of safety of those members of the Moiwana community who would like to return to their land. Moreover, it is not clear whether the construction or