they considered “the progress made to be insufficient” and that the investigation procedures of the State are not guided by the criteria established by the Court in the Judgment. In this respect, they indicated that "the State has not adequately investigated the participation of all the perpetrators and instigators [;] that there are obstacles to question the commanders of paramilitary groups who were extradited to the United States of America; [that] no investigation was conducted to shed light on the existence of a "“coup de grâce plan” and finally [that] the State officials, who are currently being investigated, enjoy benefits during their detention. They asserted, regarding the investigation into the “coup de grâce plan”, that “the State has made no effort to shed light on the existence, the perpetrators, the purpose of the Plan [...] or the patterns of violence against the UP; it has neither identified the persons who are members of the so-called ‘group of the six or the eight” [grupo de los seis o de los ocho]. They also sustained that there is “no body of evidence" related to other cases concerning the process of extermination of the Patriotic Union, or a more immediate manner regarding other crimes possibly concerning the execution of the Plan, like the murder of Miller Chacón, the attack against the President of the UP, Aida Abella and the threats against other UP leaders". 9. Regarding the investigation into State officials, the representatives indicated that "there were no investigations underway to verify the chain of command of the two military officers who were convicted of the murder of Senator Cepeda". They also mentioned that it was “worrying that [one of the high-ranking civil authority, who was found responsible and accused] is not detained in a common prison, but in a special penitentiary attached to the Armed Forces, that is, the Escuela de Comunicaciones de Facatativá (Cundinarmarca)". Following this line of thought, they stated that they did not intend to question the need to separate in the prison, for security reasons, public officials from the rest of inmates, but that “said detention must be served in special blocks of common prisons, as established by criminal law”. 10. Apart from the foregoing, as to the investigation into paramilitary officers, the representatives noted that “the perpetrators and instigators have not been fully identified and that, despite some of them were identified, their situations have not been defined in the specific case". They mentioned that the information gathered in the criminal proceeding contains valuable indicia about the responsibility of paramilitary officers who had not confessed to their participation in the facts and, especially, that the 26th Office of the Special Public Prosecutor for International Humanitarian Law had not included any paramilitary officer in the investigation. They also emphasized that “[…] in the instant case, there is a statement of the extradited paramilitary leader, Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias "Don Berna", rendered on September 17, 2009, in New York and that [...] his extradition objectively hinders the possibility of obtaining information from him, in order for him to elaborate upon the information related to the murder of Senator Cepeda.” Regarding the extraditions, they alleged that “it is up to the Colombian State to adopt adequate mechanisms and enter into the necessary cooperation agreements in order to guarantee the participation of the victims in the proceedings followed against the paramilitary leaders; however, no progress was made in the cooperation agreements." 11. The Commission considered the detention of the high-ranking civil authority, allegedly involved in the instant case, to be a positive step. Nevertheless, it noted that “most of the information gathered in relation to the investigations corresponds to proceedings before Judgment". It also argued that, therefore, it was waiting for updated information, “as well as the evidence on this respect.” In addition, it 4