provide information to the Court on how it is complying with each aspect ordered by the latter is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the judgment.9 a) Obligation to take the necessary measures to provide justice in this case (fifteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 6. The State advised that the criminal investigation into the events of La Granja continued in the Office No. 5 of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office, under case file No. 122. It indicated that, as a result of the investigation, Isaías Montes Hernández and Jorge Alexander Sánchez Castro had received criminal convictions. In addition, in October and November 2010, two former paramilitaries were implicated in the investigation and their statements were taken. In its ruling of December 11, 2010, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared admissible the application for review filed by the Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the decisions issued against José Vicente Castro, and ordered that the proceedings be forwarded to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit. In its last report, the State underscored that an indictment had been issued against that individual for crimes of aggravated multiple homicide, aggravated simple kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit a crime. In addition, the State indicated that an order had been issued to receive the testimony of Salvatore Mancuso, but this did not provide any information that was useful for the investigation and, currently, efforts were being made to identify other perpetrators, because some of the people who had been named were already deceased. Regarding the events that occurred in El Aro, the State reported that proceedings were underway in the Criminal Court of the Adjunct Specialized Circuit of Antioquia against an Army lieutenant, who had been detained, and a corporal. (However, the State clarified that, in 2011, the proceedings against the corporal had concluded owing to his death). The State also indicated that alias “Pilatos” had been charged and his legal situation had been defined on February 22, 2011, when he had pleaded guilty in return for a reduced sentence; a procedure that was pending the establishment of a date. In addition, Isaías Montes Hernández “alias Junior” had also pleaded guilty in return for a reduced sentence for the crimes of aggravated homicide and larceny and aggravated theft, and had been sentenced on September 20, 2010, by the Adjunct Court of the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Antioquia, to 24 years’ imprisonment. The State advised that, currently, the convicted man is detained in the Itagüí maximum security prison. 7. In addition, the State highlighted measures taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to further the investigations, namely: (1) the three investigations, of El Aro, La Granja and Jesús Maria Valle, will be concentrated in a single office; (2) the efforts will be supported by at least 10 investigators from the Technical Investigation Unit of the Judicial Police, who, within their terms of reference, will work exclusively on procedures for the said investigations; (3) it is planned to bring in two analysts from the Technical Investigation Unit who will work, exclusively, on the three investigations; they will carry out the fundamental task of cross-checking information from the three cases, making a comparative analysis of the probative elements, and the similarity of the motives among other components that are found to be common to the three cases; (4) regarding the methodology, once these cases have been reassigned to a single office, a first meeting will                                                              9 Cf. Case of the Five Pensions v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 24, 2012, third considering paragraph. See also, Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 28, 2011. 4