3 (d) The General Assembly of the Organization of American States should be informed of the State’s failure to comply with the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 10. The note of the Secretariat of December 14, 2004, in which, on the instructions of the Court, it requested the State to submit, by February 15, 2005, at the latest, information on the reparations pending compliance and, specifically, detailed information on the measures taken by the Prosecutor for the Transitory Procedural Regime of the Judicial Circuit of the state of Táchira, concerning the “obstacles” that, in their observations, the representatives alleged could prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible in this case. 11. The notes addressed to the State by the Secretariat on February 23, June 7 and July 7, 2005, reiterating the request that the State submit the information requested on December 14, 2004 (supra Having seen paragraph 10). 12. The brief of the State of August 22, 2005, and its attachments, advising that the pertinent procedures were being implemented for payment of the amount owed to the beneficiaries of the judgment delivered by the Court. 13. The note of the Secretariat of August 23, 2005, advising the State that it had failed to refer to the measure of reparation pending compliance: “to continue the investigations into the facts of the case and to punish those found responsible.” It granted the State until September 12, 2005, to submit the required information. 14. The communication of the State of September 13, 2005, in which it asked the Court to “clarify the amount it should pay” for compensation and interest on arrears to the next of kin of the victims and to the surviving victims. 15. The note of the Secretariat of September 16, 2005, in which it reiterated to the State the request made in the note of August 23, 2005 (supra Having seen paragraph 13). It also asked the representatives and the Commission to present their observations on the State’s communication of September 13, 2005 (supra Having seen paragraph 14). 16. The observations of the representatives of September 29, 2005, and the attachments, in which they indicated that the State should pay the interest on arrears and make the monetary adjustment on the amount of US$28,751.44 (twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-one United States dollars and fortyfour cents) from November 28, 2002, to the date on which the amount was effectively paid. They also indicated that the representatives and the State could “come to an agreement about updating the debt.” 17. The observations of the Commission of October 13, 2005, in which, regarding the payment of pecuniary compensation and interest, it considered that, in the absence of a specific criterion founded on a ruling on this situation, “the Court should establish, on grounds of equity, a total amount to be paid, based on the amount originally owed of US$28,751.44, increased by an amount that, on grounds of equity, it assesses to be adequate reparation for the damage caused to the injured party because they did not have this amount at their disposal.” Regarding the obligation to investigate, the Commission reiterated its conclusions of August 2004 (supra Having seen paragraph 8) and requested the Court to require the State to provide specific information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment and that it