8 the information provided in what refers to its use in the ruling, but not with respect to the access of the parties to it. 11. That in the present case, Colombia has provided certain information regarding the investigations, which has been transmitted and known by the representatives and the Commission, but it requests that the Tribunal not make it public in its orders of monitoring compliance. The Court will take into consideration all the information provided and includes in this order only what is indispensable in order to determine the degree of compliance with this operative paragraph. In what refers to the other declarations made by the State (supra Considering Clause number 7), the Court reiterates, as it has upon deciding other cases, that it is not a criminal court where the criminal responsibility of individuals can be analyzed,9 reason for which in this phase it shall not analyze the entire scope of the domestic investigations and processes, but only the degree of compliance with that ordered in the Judgment. * * * 12. That the State informed that it is currently making progress, in the Human Rights Unit of the Solicitor General Of the Republic, in a criminal process that is in its preliminary stages regarding one person and in the investigation phase regarding others, within the framework of which constant investigation activities are carried out. It also indicated that it has issued arrest warrants and inquiry decisions, among other actions. During the hearing, the State pointed out that there have been convictions against twelve people for their participation in the facts, that since the issuing of the Judgment of the Court an important investigative effort has been made; and that it will continue with the inquiry proceedings of several people linked to this case, promising to send information containing the details of the criminal actions carried out up to that moment. It mentioned that up to February 2009 four people had been linked and another three were captured. With regard to the observations made by the representatives on the alleged negative of the Public Prosecutor to charge the people linked with the crime of forced disappearance, the State argued that there is no information whatsoever in the criminal case file referring to that request. In what refers to the alleged lack of actions to relate State agents to the process, the State indicated that it is a line of investigation constantly being followed, but it does not have sufficient evidence to study it in depth. Likewise, it clarified that neither of the two people recently captured are part of the “Justice and Peace” process. The State asked that the Court declare that Colombia “is complying with this reparation measure.” 13. That the representatives stated that the Human Rights Support Unit of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of Medellín abstained from issuing the arrest warrants for the people involved, for which there were sufficient elements to individualize them and that indicated where they could be located. Likewise, they mentioned that the State has not spread through the media the summons to any person who may have information regarding the facts. The representatives also recalled that the State should forward to the Court, every six months, detailed reports of the status of the 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 37; and Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. See also Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, footnote 37; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 93.