9 investigations and that up to this moment it has not complied with that obligation. Likewise, in the private hearing, they pointed out that up until that moment the Public Prosecutors’ Office had not made progress in any action seeking to determine which State agents participated in the facts. The representatives also indicated that “what has been stated by the Government in its report, in the sense that they [have] never formally and within the procedure required the charging of the crime of forced disappearance is not true,” since they had requested it on several opportunities. They consider that there is a lack of seriousness, effectiveness, and promptness in carrying out the investigations since no specific actions leading to determine the participation of State agents were proven, despite being it necessary to prioritize the boost to the investigations given the time that has gone by. 14. That the Commission indicated that even though the State had informed of multiple actions, it omitted providing specific information, such as for example what arrest warrants have been withdrawn. It also mentioned that the only specific investigation process is the request of inquiry of one person and that it had not indicated if it was carried out. The Commission also mentioned that the State does not make any reference whatsoever to the progress in the criminal proceedings already started against some of the planners and perpetrators of the facts of the present case, or the execution of the arrest warrants issued and reiterated up to that moment. It pointed out that the State was compelled to provide suitable and relevant information, in the sense that it shall reflect specific and effective results. During the hearing, the Commission requested that the Court require from the State more detailed and specific information. Further on in its observations, the Commission requested that the State inform in a summarized manner, the investigations it is carrying out regarding this case, in order to be able to determine if the access to justice is guaranteed. 15. That upon issuing the Judgment,10 this Tribunal concluded that the partial impunity and the lack of effectiveness of the criminal process in this case was reflected in two aspects: first of all, the majority of those responsible had not been linked to the investigations or had not been identified or indicted, when considering that around 60 men participated in the massacre. Secondly, in the trial and conviction in absence of the paramilitaries, they had been benefited through the act of justice that convicts them, but does not make the punishment effective. 16. That having more than three years gone by as of the mentioned Judgment, the Tribunal observes that there has not been any substantive progress in the investigation, taking into account the number of people who allegedly participated in the massacre in relation to the number of people linked to the investigation. Additionally, the lack of specific actions addressed to identifying and linking all those responsible and the planners of the massacre, specifically those who were public officials and members of the police force, is clear. Even though the State argued that this is a line of investigation, it has not provided a satisfactory explanation of the factors that have prevented up to this moment the linking of other state agents, despite the clear existence of elements in that sense. In what refers to the lack of investigations into the crime of forced disappearance, it is appropriate to remember that in those cases the State is compelled to carry out an investigation ex officio and without delay, in a serious, impartial, and effective manner. The effective search for the truth corresponds to the State and does not depend on the procedural initiative or the provision of evidentiary elements by the victim or its next of kin. 10 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 183.