15 the criminal situation of the members of the military detachments in which Mr. Bámaca Velásquez had been detained in 1992. Said acts should be based on the precision of codes and institutional units as well as on the corresponding line of command.24 The Court also issued a ruling on different measures to promote the participation of victims, the protection of witnesses, and legal officials, among other aspects.25 It is important to emphasize that the representatives indicated that the State has not fully complied with any of the specific information requests made by the Court in the Order of January 27, 2009 (supra Considering Clause 22). A first step to assess the effectiveness of the investigations is having more specific information on these matters; therefore, the Court reiterates the information requests once again and regrets that the State’s reports have not provided more documentation on the requests. 31. Conclusion of the Court The Court considers that the previously explained information leads to the conclusion that the decisions adopted by the Public Prosecutors’ Office –by requesting the annulment of the dismissal from 1999– and, firstly, by the Supreme Court –by accepting said request– clearly constitutes an initial step towards complying with the Court’s orders. These decisions that aim to reopen the dismissed investigation are an application of the pacta sunt servanda principle, which guarantees the appropriate effet utile for the stipulations of a treaty within the domestic legislation of the States Parties.26 Despite the fact that the Tribunal considers that many more acts from the judiciary to be necessary to eliminate impunity in the present case, the decisions of the Public Prosecutors’ Office and the Supreme Court to promote the investigation are consistent with the Court’s constant jurisprudence in the sense that: 32. 24 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 18, Considering Clause thirty-four. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 18, Considering Clauses thirty-six and thirty-seven. 26 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003, Considering Clause twelve; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003, Considering Clause seventeen, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause seventeen. 25