11 detriment; therefore, the Tribunal could consider as proven those facts that were only provable by means of the evidence that the State denied to forward.11 25. That during the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment, the role of the Tribunal is no longer to determine the facts of the case and the possible international responsibility of the State, but to verify only the compliance with the obligations stipulated in the ruling by the responsible State. To that end, the Court needs to have the necessary information, which must be provided by the State, the Commission and the victims or their representatives. Furthermore, the General Assembly to the OAS repeated that, in order for the Tribunal to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, the States Parties to the Convention need to provide, in time fashion, the information requested by the Court.12 In this way, for the sake of complying with its role in monitoring compliance with the measures of reparation regarding the violations committed to the detriment of the victims and in the presence of both parties to an action, the Court shall assess, in each case, the need, expediency or relevance of maintaining the confidentiality of the information furnished in relation to its use in the order but not in relation to the parties’ access to it. 26. That in the instant case, Colombia has submitted certain information related to the investigations, which has been transmitted and learnt by the representatives and the Commission, but the State requests the Tribunal not to publish such information in the monitoring compliance orders. The Court shall take into account all the information provided and shall include in this order only the essential part of such information, in order to determine the level of compliance with this operative paragraph. As to the other allegations of the State (supra Considering clause 20), the Court has pointed out, as in previous cases, that it is not a criminal court which can analyze the criminal responsibility of individuals,13 and therefore, the Court shall not analyze in this stage all the dimensions of the investigations and internal proceedings, but only the level of compliance with the order established in the Judgment. * * * 27. The State informed that, since September 2006, several meetings have been held within the framework of the M.O.S. in order to coordinate different issues related to the investigation into the facts, as well as the protection of witnesses, the identification of new victims and the strategy of investigation. Said investigation is being conducted by the Attorney General's Office and the Superior Council of 11 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 98 to 100. Cf. also, mutatis mutandi, case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) V. Mexico. Court’s Order of January 19, 2009 (request for expansion of alleged victims and refusal to forward documentary evidence), para. 59. 12 General Assembly, Order AG/ RES 2408 (XXXVIII-O/08 adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights”. 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C Nº 4 para.. 134; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 37; Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. Cf. also, Case of Boyce et al. V. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs . Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C Nº 169, footnote 37 and case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 93.