4 other responsible parties and to ascertain other instances of culpable conduct that have not yet been investigated. This process is at the preliminary stage.” The State expressed its willingness to continue with the proceedings until a final judgment has been rendered. The State does not accept the representatives’ rejection of the decisions made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office by way of unsubstantiated statements in, for instance, alleging that it is proven that those individuals, whose investigation was closed, [must have] participated in the kidnapping and execution of the victim. In this regard, the State finds that the representatives, in their capacity as a civil party to the investigation, must cooperate in providing evidence and making use of domestic remedies to challenge judicial rulings. 8. The representatives noted the advances made in the investigations, but regard them to be insufficient to declare compliance with the measures ordered. They added that “the contradiction between the body of evidence and the [Superior Court of Popayán’s] acquittal [of one of the defendants] is very noteworthy, considering that in the criminal case there is good evidence that demonstrates [the defendant’s] part” in the victim’s murder. Furthermore, they added that “[p]resently one part of the proceedings is at the preliminary stage, another at the investigation stage awaiting trial, and another is at the sentencing stage.” 9. The Commission “value[d] the updated information presented by the State on the domestic proceedings and awaits further information” regarding the outcome of the investigations. The Commission added that the State should respond to the representatives’ arguments of April 5, 2010 regarding the relief of various individuals from criminal liability. 10. The Court values the information put forth by the State as it reflects its willingness to comply with its international obligations to investigate and punish those responsible for the human rights violations identified in the present case. Consequently, the Court considers that the State has made significant progress in implementing this reparation measure, and awaits updated information on the processes still underway, specifically concerning the aforementioned termination of criminal proceedings relating to certain individuals. B) Regarding the grant for of Myriam Zapata Escué to carry out university studies7 (Operative Paragraph Eleven of the Judgment) 11. The State, in its October 22, 2010 report, reiterated the information it had previously provided (supra Having Seen 5) on the agreement with the Instituto Colombiano de Crédito y Estudios Técnicos en el Exterior [Colombian Institute of Educational Credit and Technical Studies Abroad] (hereinafter, “ICETEX”), whereby it created a fund designated to cover Myriam Zapata’s academic, living, and moving expenses for the duration of the course of study of her choice, i.e., ten academic semesters. In this regard, the State attached a copy of the payment made on December 29, 2009 to ICETEX. Also, the State reported on the procedures for carrying out future payments, which basically consist in sending the Department of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Foreign Ministry, or directly to the ICETEX Fund Office, the following documents: 1) an academic transcript of the immediately preceding semester, and 2) proof of enrollment for the academic semester to be studied. Once received, payment will be sent within 15 days, the University will be informed that payment is being 7 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Interpretation of Judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 5, 2008. Series C No. 178, paragraphs 26 to 29. In said Judgment the scope, in the present case, of the provisions of paragraph 170 of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs, passed down by the Court on July 4, 2007, was clarified.