5 intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties10. * * * 7. As to the obligation to pay the amounts set in this Judgment as compensation for pecuniary damages, non pecuniary damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment), the State informed that “by means of Resolution 2091 of May 27, 2008 of the Ministry of National Defense, it was ordered compliance with the payment of the compensations and legal costs and expenses and that the payment was effectively made in June 2008”. Therefore, it requested the Tribunal to consider this aspect fulfilled. 8. The representatives noted that “the Colombian State made the payment of the legal costs, expenses and compensations in favor of the next-of-kin of the victims mentioned in the Judgment and, as a result, this measure of reparation must be considered complied with". 9. The Commission “observ[ed] with great pleasure the information furnished by the parties in relation to the payment of the sums corresponding to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and legal costs and expenses, […] as a consequence of which, this aspect of the judgment must be considered fulfilled". 10. According to the information submitted by the parties, the Tribunal notes that the State has fully complied with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment. * * * 11. As to the obligation to conduct effectively the necessary criminal proceedings, still in process and all future investigations so that those responsible for the facts of the instant case be identified and punished as provided by law (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State informed that two criminal proceedings are being conducted: one proceeding was instituted upon request of the Solicitor General’s Office (Human Rights National Unit) and the second proceeding was brought before the Superior Tribunal of Popayan. 12. Regarding the first proceeding, the State mentioned that “between March and April 2009, the arrest warrants issued against [10] persons were enforced [...], who were later on included in [said] proceeding and brought before the court that is conducting the investigation". The State informed that “On April 13, 2009 it was defined the procedural status of [two of the apprehended persons], against whom a preventive detention order, without the benefit of release from prison, was issued, for the alleged commission of the illicit acts of aggravated murder, aggravated kidnapping with extortion, torture, aggravated theft and damage to someone else’s property”. In addition, it was informed that on May 5, 2009, “it ordered preventive detention orders against [another three of the apprehended persons] for [the alleged commission] of similar illicit acts”. Moreover, on May 7, 2009, "it was defined the procedural status of [another two of the apprehended persons] for the alleged involvement in the crimes of aggravated murder, aggravated kidnapping with extortion, torture, aggravated theft and damage to someone else’s property” and on May 8, 2009, “it was defined the procedural status [of another three persons] for the crimes already 10 See Case of Ivcher Bronstein V Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Saramaka People V. Surinam, supra note 7, considering clause six and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama, supra note 7, considering clause five.