requested the Court “to order the State to implement the necessary measures to conduct and finish the investigation promptly and effectively.” 12. In view of what was informed by the State and the observations submitted by the representatives and the Commission, the Court values the efforts made and actions taken by the State to conduct the investigation into the facts of the instant case, inter alia, by implicating a high-ranking civil authority and other alleged perpetrators of the facts in the criminal proceeding. However, from the information furnished by the State, it is not possible to determine further progress than what the Court already knew upon the delivery of the Judgment, especially in relation to the lines of investigation to determine the joint action of state agents and members of paramilitary groups; the functioning of mechanism to ensure the appearance or collaboration of extradited persons who could have relevant information and the duly coordination of domestic authorities to ensure the adequate handling of relevant information in all the investigations. 13. The Court recalls that, in paragraph 216, subparagraph a) to g), 217 and 218 of the Judgment, the Tribunal established the criteria that must be applied in the investigations into the facts of the instant case. In addition, the Tribunal deems that even though the State has taken several actions to detain the alleged responsible, it must make every effort to effectively investigate into the facts that gave rise to the violations declared in the Judgment, since 17 years have elapsed from the occurrence of the facts and there is still partial impunity surrounding the case. In view of the above, the Court recalls the State’s duty to make every effort and take all pertinent actions, as soon as possible, to make progress in the corresponding investigations. It is essential that the State present updated, detailed and complete information on the investigations, actions taken and the results thereof. B) On the duty to publish, once, in the official gazette and in another national newspaper, the pertinent parts of the judgment, and the duty to publish the entirety of the Judgment, for at least one year, on an appropriate official web page of the State (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment). 14. The State informed that “on July 16, 2010, it published the entire judgment of the Court on the web page of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Program on Human Rights. Moreover, on July 21, 2010, it published the judgment on the web page of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of National Defense." In addition, it mentioned that “the publication of the chapters of the judgment in a national newspaper was made on an additional offspring in […] El Espectador newspaper, on Sunday November 28, 2010 [...] Lastly, regarding the publication of the chapters of the Judgment of the [..] Court in the official gazette, it mentioned that said chapters were published in the Official Gazette No. 47931 of December 22, 2010, page No.67” and, consequently, it requested to declare full compliance with this measure. 15. The representatives noted that “the publications made by the Colombian State in the official gazette, in ‘El Espectador’ newspaper and on four official web pages, comply with the requirements established by the Court in its judgment"; for which they considered that the Court must declare that this measure was complied with. 16. The Commission valued the information presented by the State, but it noted that “the State has not submitted the annex containing the physical publication; 5