3 4. The Secretariat’s notes of May 25, 2004, by means of which it transmitted the State’s report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) and to the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (hereinafter the “representatives”) and, following instructions from the President of the Court (hereinafter the “President”), granted them until June 25, 2004, for the submission of such observations to the cited State’s report as they deemed pertinent. 5. The observations to the State’s report (supra Having seen 3) submitted by the Inter-American Commission on June 25, 2004, where it indicated that the State “sent a copy of the December 17, 2003, issue of the official gazette where the relevant sections of the [judgment of the Inter-American Court] were published in the manner ordered,” and “submitted a number of certifications relative to the payment of compensation for material damages, immaterial damages, costs and expenditures which, in the Commission’s opinion, proves its compliance with operative paragraphs 7 to 13 of the Judgment.” The Commission likewise observed, in relation to the fourth operative paragraph of the September 18, 2003, Judgment (supra Having seen 1), that: a) the investigation’s procedural status has not changed since 1996, and that the State has not provided information on “specific measures adopted to advance it;” b) the representatives continue to be separated from the judicial proceedings since their status as a party to the case has not been reestablished, despite the fact that on October 10, 2003, they submitted a request to that effect; c) the Supreme Court was considering a special remedy against a decision of Section Six of the Penal Chamber, which declared expiration of the penal proceedings, concerning which the Court’s General Prosecutor issued a favorable opinion on December 18, 2003; and d) on April 21, 2004 the Administrative Investigations Prosecutor requested the Argentine Federal Police to reopen the police summary proceedings against police chief (R) Miguel Angel Espósito; however, “no progress has been made in the investigation on this matter.” On the other hand, in relation to operative paragraph five of the Judgment (supra Having seen 1), the Commission expressed that: a) the information provided by the State reflects initiatives of a very preliminary and partial nature; b) other subjects, apart from the procedural and penal system applicable to underage individuals and detention conditions were dealt with in the case; and c) to accomplish an adjustment of the domestic legal system in the terms ordered by the Court, a comprehensive revision and evaluation, as well as modification actions, are required. Lastly, the Commission asked the Court to require the State to report “which the timetable is or the foreseen deadlines are, to put into effect the measures proposed by the Executive Branch, which are still being studied,” and to continue supervising compliance with judgment. 6. The observations to the State’s report (supra Having seen 3) submitted by the representatives on June 25, 2004, where they highlighted “the payment of compensation within the time limit [for] material and immaterial damages [for] costs and expenditures – such payments having been made in conformity with the provisions of the judgment of September 18 last; and the publication of the judgment in the terms ordered by the […] Court” (highlighting from the original). Concerning the rest of the measures ordered, the representatives expressed that “compliance therewith is at least ‘incomplete’ [and the] procedures [pointed out by the State] are not at all sufficient to comply with the measures related to the need for ‘adjustment and modernisation of domestic law […]’; or with the measures related to the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations in the instant case.” In like manner, the representatives asked the Court to continue supervising compliance with judgment.