6 been a priority.” It further noted that, “the State of Colombia has been very diligent in that regard, [i.e. in] managing to coordinate the best way to implement certain types of measures with the victims.” 15. That, given the disposition expressed by both the State and the representatives, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to encourage the coordination between the two of the aspects relating to the “publi[cation of ]the results of the proceedings,” pursuant to the first Operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations rendered in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). In this regard, the parties must report to the Court on the efforts made for that purpose (infra Considering clause No. 28). * ** 16. That, in relation to the reopening of the investigations that were closed on statute of limitations grounds, the State noted that “the malfeasance of public office, cover-up, personal injury and perjury crimes that were [referred to by] the representatives of the victims [in their observations of March 27, 2008 to the State’s report] are not crimes against humanity or violations of international human rights law or serious violations of human rights, which is why they are not exempted from the statute of limitations.”8 Moreover, at the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 7), the State stated that, as the Court is aware, “there is an investigation in place at the Human Rights Unit of the Public Prosecutor’s Office […], investigation 876-A, [which is currently] at the preliminary stage.” In this regard, it noted that “the Prosecutor’s Office has reported that it has instructed the preparation of inquiries intended to establish which members of the National Army were involved in the operations that ended the lives of the victims, [and that,] so far, the only fact they have been able to verify […] is the fact that the army provided logistic assistance by helicopter to transport the bodies, on the understanding, at the time, that these were deaths that had occurred in combat.” Lastly, the State acknowledged that, “unfortunately, today we have no results, at the criminal level, other than those which are [already] known to the […] Tribunal,” and it thus promised to “move” the investigations “forward.” In this regard, it stated that, “the private accuser’s involvement in [the] proceeding is extremely important.” 17. That, at the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 7), the representatives reminded the Court that, on May 30, 2002, the investigation that had been opened in 1998 by the Human Rights Unit, which was finally registered under No. 876, ended with its dismissal by estoppel as to 37 members of the police department who were also under investigation in connection with the instant case. The representatives further explained that this “entailed a decision leading to res judicata,”9 which, in addition, was made subsequently to the Judgment on merits 8 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 7, Considering clause No. 8. 9 The representatives explained that the “reason considered by the Prosecutor’s Office was that more than nine years had elapsed since the military criminal investigation was opened, which far exceeded the maximum preliminary investigation period, without obtaining evidence to indict or clear the thirtyseven defendants.” They added that, by the time the investigation was closed, "the judgment on merits of the Inter-American Court […] stated that the military criminal jurisdiction was precisely the ground to hold the State responsible for the violation of the right to justice.”