13 them to put forward their observations to the proceedings within the appropriate legal scope. Also, it is within such scope that the observations will be resolved in due time.” 55. Before assessing compliance with the obligation to investigate, it is appropriate, first, to rule on the State's request regarding the disclosure of information put forward in the investigation. To that end, the Court refers to the decisions made to monitor compliance in relation to other cases in which Colombia has put forward the same argument8. Therefore, the Court shall take into account all the information provided, which was duly forwarded to the representatives and the Inter-American Commission, and shall only include the indispensable information in this Order, for the purposes of determining the level of compliance with this operative paragraph. 56. The State reported that, at present, the National Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office is conducting an investigation, and the prosecutor in charge of the investigation "has carried out various activities related to the decreeing and taking of evidence,” which can be seen in the important results obtained and the State referred to these results.9 Moreover, the State indicated that the victims’ representatives have actively participated in the criminal proceeding as civil parties. It further stated that the prosecutor for the case had a meeting with the representatives in order to “answer different concerns” they had with regard to the proceeding. In addition, Colombia emphasized that “several law enforcement officers, including high-ranking military authorities, had been linked with the investigation into these facts, and that the Prosecutor is constantly addressing this line of investigation.” In the brief of April 20, 2010, Colombia made reference to the observations presented by the representatives regarding the fact that no judgment has been passed down against the accused Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz, who was brought before a hearing in December 2009 (supra footnote page 9(v) and 9(xiii)); in that respect, it sustained that "taking the complexity of the investigation into account, it deem[ed] that announcing a decision of such 8 See Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Court of July 7, 2009, Considering Clauses twelve and thirteen; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Considering Clauses twenty-two to twenty-six; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009; Considering Clauses eight to eleven; Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Considering Clauses ten to thirteen. 9 Among these results, the State highlighted: i) the judgment delivered on June 22, 2007 by the First Trial Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bucaramanga, by which Miguel Angel Osuma Gomez and Jairo Ivan Galvis were sentenced to 40 years imprisonment; ii) the order to bring charges issued by the Prosecutor’s Office on July 19, 2007 against five accused; iii) the order issued by the Prosecutor’s Office on October 17, 2007, by which it was ordered to link two paramilitary officers and two “state agents”; iv) the condemnatory order issued by the Prosecutor’s Office on February 15, 2008, against one of the paramilitary officers associated with the investigation by means of the previous order (supra iii); v) the order issued on May 14, 2009 by which it was decided the legal situation of two paramilitary officers and a “state agent” previously associated with the investigation and their preventative detention was ordered on charges of multiple aggravated murder and conspiracy to commit a crime; it was also decided to continue with the investigation against the “former state agent” Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz and an arrest warrant was issued against him (infra xiii); vi) the order issued on May 14, 2009, by which three “former state agents” (retired generals) and a former congressman were summoned to render a preliminary examination statement; vii) in July 2009, the statement of two of these people was received; viii) in August 2009, the preliminary examination statement was taken from one of the retired generals who were summoned on May 14 of that year (supra vi) ix) in August 2009, the affidavit of one paramilitary officer was received; x) in September 2009, the former congressman who was summoned on May 14 of that year, rendered the preliminary examination statement (supra vi); xi) in September 2009, a judicial inspection was carried out; xii) on October 23, 2009 it was decided to refer the investigation to the Supreme Court of Justice in order to conduct the proceeding against the already mentioned former congressman and “two former law enforcement officers” (supra vi and x); such referral will be final once the case file is reorganized and xiii) on December 4, 2009, a public hearing was conducted in order to try Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz, "former state agent" (supra v)”