2 identify and punish those responsible” for the violations of the human rights of the victims in this case, and that “it had not complied” with the payment of the interest on arrears. 6. The brief of the Commission of February 24, 2004, in which it advised that “the State’s failure to comply [...] with the elements established by the Court in its judgment of November 28, 2002, subsists” and requested that “the General Assembly of the Organization of American States should be informed about the noncompliance of the State, in accordance with Article 65 of the American Convention” on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). 7. The report of the State of May 21, 2004, in which it indicated that: (a) On May 21, 1997, the Permanent Council of War of San Cristóbal declared that “the formulation of financial charges against the soldiers allegedly involved in the fact was inadmissible,” a decision that was ratified by the Court Martial on July 3, 1998. However, in its judgment, the Court Martial did not issue a ruling on the three soldiers allegedly involved. Subsequently, on June 30, 2000, the Superior Military Prosecutor’s Office declared that the case files in this regard concerning these three soldiers should be filed; and (b) As of March 23, 2004, the case was passed to the Prosecutor for the Transitory Procedural Regime of the Judicial Circuit of the state of Táchira, so that she could conduct the pertinent judicial investigations and take the relevant measures. 8. The observations of the Commission of August 2, 2004, in which it indicated that the information provided by the State had not contributed any new elements that would reveal that some progress had been made in the investigations to identify and punish those responsible for the facts that gave rise to this case, and did not correspond to the most current information on the judicial processing of the case in the Venezuelan jurisdiction. 9. The observations of the representatives of August 2, 2004, in which they indicated that: (a) The information provided by the State was incomplete. The State had not advised that the case had been judicially closed owing to the confirmation of the judgment of the Court Martial by a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 20, 1998, and that this ruling was final; (b) It is possible to order the re-opening of the investigations in the ordinary jurisdiction, because “the police agents and soldiers who killed 14 fishermen and injured two others during the El Amparo massacre should not have been investigated and tried by military courts”; (c) The State has still not complied with the obligation to pay the amount owed to the surviving victims and to the next of kin of the other victims for interest on arrears in the payment of the compensation, and