including Mr. López Álvarez – from communicating among themselves in their own language (Garifuna), the Public Prosecution Service had filed charges against two officials. Following several investigative measures, the Tela Sectional Court issued “a provisional dismissal of the case in favor of the accused.” The Public Prosecution Service appealed this decision and the La Ceiba Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the first instance judge. Subsequently, the Tela First Instance Court issued a “final dismissal in favor of both the accused,” and this decision is now final. 5. In their written observations (supra having seen paragraph 4), the representatives asserted that the State had not presented sufficient information. Then, during the hearing, they alleged that the information on the investigation presented by the State referred to a single incident that had taken place before the Judgment in this case had been delivered. They added that the investigation had not covered all the facts that needed to be investigated. In addition, they indicated that the victim in this case, Alfredo López Álvarez, could not participate in the hearing and, in particular, had asked the representatives to state, on his behalf, that “until the facts had been investigated, he was in a situation of continuing revictimization.” They asked the Court to declare that this measure of reparation had not been complied with because no progress had been made, and that the State must investigate all the facts and determine administrative or criminal responsibilities. Lastly, they considered it pertinent that the State “elaborate an investigation plan […] that includes a timetable for its execution.” 6. In its written observations (supra having seen paragraph 5), the Commission indicated that the State’s reports were insufficient. Later, during the hearing, it stated that it shared “the concerns mentioned by the representatives” during this proceeding. It indicated that the State should identify those responsible based on the different facts determined in the Judgment, and expressed its concern that the possible application of the statute of limitations would prevent compliance with the measure. Consequently, it considered that it was “very important that […] the Court establish a clear time frame for the State to provide information.” b) Information and observations presented on the obligation to adopt measures designed to create conditions that permit ensuring to the inmates of Honduran prisons adequate food, medical attention, hygiene and physical conditions, and to implement a training program on human rights for officials who work in the prisons (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment). 7. At the hearing, the State advised that “there are numerous structural shortcomings in the prison system.” It also referred to the existence of various norms that would help improve this situation, including the Penitentiary System Act, approved by the National Congress of Honduras on May 8, 2012. 3 It affirmed that, based on this law, “an assessment has been initiated of the 24 prisons throughout the country in order to prepare the work plan,” and that different regulations had been drawn up on aspects relating to persons deprived of liberty. In addition, it indicated that the State had “made investments in the infrastructure and safety of the institutions.” 8. The State also presented information on the access of those deprived of liberty to health care and education services, and to new prisons. It described “progress in [the] 3 In its written reports, the State had indicated, inter alia, that measures to obtain an increased budged for the prisons were pending, as well as the adoption of laws and regulations, including the Penitentiary System Act. 3