16 conducted against him. The State did not report the crime he was accused of. According to the Judgment, in 1989 an order ruled in his favor closing proceedings for homicide before military jurisdiction13 and in January 2007, it was decided to bring him under investigation in the ordinary criminal courts for the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime;14 f) Three “former State agents” (retired generals) and a former Congressman were summoned to give preliminary examination statements. One of the retired Generals and the former Congressman gave preliminary examination statements. None of the former State agents had been formally associated with the investigation when the Court delivered its Judgment and with regard to the former congressman, a resolución inhibitoria [motion to dismiss] was issued; and, g) It was decided to remit the investigation to the Supreme Court of Justice in order to carry out proceedings against the former Congressman and "two former law enforcement officers." There is no record showing that such investigation has been completed. 61. The foregoing proceedings show that in the last three years two persons have been convicted and another 14 are being investigated or on trial; most of them are former paramilitary members and former state agents. Furthermore, the first steps have been taken in the investigation into the participation of high-ranking military authorities and other state agents; however, no convictions have been announced against former state agents. Even though progress has been made with the investigation and punishment, it is vital that the State continue investigating, with due diligence, in order to determine all those responsible for the La Rochela Massacre. In that respect, it is necessary to remember the seriousness of the crimes committed in this case, which entailed a complex structure of individuals that took part in planning and executing the crime.15 In the proceeding before the Court, the State itself acknowledged that, at least, forty members of the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group, acting in cooperation and with the acquiescence of State agents, initially detained the fifteen victims of the instant case, who were members of a Judicial Commission (Unidad Móvil de Investigación [Mobile Investigative Unit]) and later committed a massacre against them. As a result of the attack, twelve members of the Judicial Commission were killed and three survived.16 It should be considered that, as well as the participation of various members of "Los Masetos" paramilitary group and State agents, the Court observed that said Judicial Commission was investigating the disappearance case of the 19 Comerciantes [19 Tradesmen], among others, which was perpetrated by the ACDEGAM paramilitary group, and which had the support of and close links with senior leaders of the State security forces.17 These factors need to be taken into account to assess the number of persons that took part in the massacre and the motive. 62. Therefore, it is essential that the State, in order to comply with its obligation to investigate, observe the criteria mentioned by the Court in its Judgment and inform the Court to that end. It is especially important to observe the criteria that ensure due diligent in the investigation.18 13 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 201. See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 202. 15 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 158. 16 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 74. 17 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 90 and 157. 18 It is worth emphasizing the following criteria: all necessary measures must be adopted in order to prevent the systematic patterns that led to the commission of serious human rights violations; development of logical lines of investigation that take into account the factors to which the Court refer 14