4 a) Regarding operative paragraph fifteen of the Judgment 7. With regard to the obligation to carry out the necessary diligences to investigate the facts of this case, the State reported "that the criminal proceedings [...] are partially at pretrial stage and therefore subject to secrecy." It reiterated that it carried out two investigations: in one into the events at La Granja, under the charge of Prosecutor No. 5 of the National Unit for Human Rights, the State reported that it had issued an indictment against Fabio León Mejia and acquitted him on June 18, 2009, in addition to collaborating with the Justice and Peace Unit to access sections of Salvatore Mancuso’s account of the facts and receipt of his statement in Washington DC." Furthermore, it indicated that an appeal for review is currently before the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to Jose Vicente Castro et al. and several procedural steps have been taken, such as the admission of the petition, notifying the parties involved, various evidence orders, a decision on the appeal filed by the lawyer for the accused and "it is currently at the office of reporting judge." Regarding the facts of the El Aro massacre, the State recalled that it is conducting an investigation at the request of Public Prosecutor's Office No. 17 of the National Human Rights Unit and it referred to certain proceedings, such as the investigation into Isaiah Montes Hernandez in October 2008 and an order for preventive detention against Mr. Isaias Montes Hernandez in October 31 2008, in addition to requesting information from other authorities about criminal proceedings against military commanders and other state agents and verifying the death of "some people mentioned in the investigation." It stated that by October 2009, the proceeding regarding two former police officers was pending trial, and that there were no known threats against witnesses, victims or the justice operators. 8. The representatives stated that the issues raised by the State regarding the reservation of the summary, is contrary to that expressed by the Court in paragraph 12 of Order of July 7, 2009, since it aims "to justify the lack of progress in the investigation." They added that the State has not conducted investigations into the Ituango Massacres seriously, as evidenced for example when "contrasting the statements made by many witnesses, including the assassinated paramilitary Francisco Enrique Villalba, [with] the proceedings performed by the Public Prosecutor's Office to verify their veracity." They stated that "11 years passed without the Colombian judiciary trying or sentencing Isaías Montes aka 'Junior,' who was a respected commander in the urban area of Ituango, who invoked a plea bargain because his application to the Justice and Peace Law was accepted, which means that his sentence related to the Ituango Massacre, cou[ld] be reduced to 8 years in prison." They added that the State had not reported on investigations conducted into the murder of Francisco Villalba, who through several statements had revealed more information about those responsible for the facts. They deemed that the Justice and Peace Law has been an obstacle to achieve sanctions suitable for their crimes. 9. The representatives also reported that Ms. Ortiz Calle, a relative of one of the victims of the El Aro Massacre, and her children have been subjected to threats and kidnappings by paramilitaries labeled as "criminal gangs." They indicated that "the rapid and timely response from the Directorate of Human Rights of the Vice-Presidency" helped "save the lives of young people and regain their freedom four days after their kidnapping." In turn, they expressed their dissatisfaction because the State had not complied with several of the commitments made to ensure the safety of these people. 2010, Considering Clause seven, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering Clause seven.