4 by the victims’ representatives prior to its publication.” 14. Among the measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition adopted by the Court in its judgment was the obligation to conduct an investigation into the facts which gave rise to the violations described in the instant case and to identify, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts of the case. After making some considerations regarding the scope of this obligation, the Court pointed out as follows: 166. Based on the foregoing, as well as on its case law, the Court orders the State to effectively carry out the criminal proceedings which have been brought and any proceedings which may be brought in the future in order to determine the responsibilities for the facts described in the instant case and apply the corresponding penalties. Furthermore, Colombia, through its competent institutions, must exhaust all investigation lines with respect to the execution of Mr. Escué-Zapata (supra paras. 63 and 109), in order to establish the truth of the facts. The State must ensure that the victim’s next of kin have full access to and capacity to act in all stages and instances of said investigations and proceedings, in accordance with the domestic legislation and the rules of the American Convention. The decisions adopted in said proceedings must be disclosed to the public by the State so that the Colombian society and the Paez Indigenous Community, in particular, may learn the truth about what happened in the instant case. 15. In the instant case, the Court states that, regarding the reparation measures ordered, the expression “the findings reached in [the] proceedings” refers to the final judicial decisions adopted in the criminal proceedings whereby these are concluded and the main controversy decided, whether convicting or acquitting the defendant. These decisions must be made public so that the Colombian society and the Paez Community may learn the truth about the facts under investigation and, if appropriate, the identity of those accountable for such facts. Likewise, the victim’s next of kin and the above Community must be properly informed about the progress of the proceedings, particularly by the prosecutors. V REGARDING THE CREATION OF A FUND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY 16. The State pointed out that the Judgment ordered the allocation of US$ 40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) to the creation of a fund for community development bearing the name of Germán Escué-Zapata, to be invested in works or services of collective interest. In this regard, the State requested the Court to clarify what is meant by fund, and whether such fund might be created, for example, by means of a trust agreement or an inter-administrative agreement entered by a national entity and the Resguardo de Jambaló. 17. In this respect, the Commission pointed out that this question refers “to the method of compliance, which must be determined in relation to compliance with judgment and that, therefore, is not admissible as part of a request for interpretation.” It further stated that the meaning of the term fund as used by the Court is to be understood as a “number of resources allocated for a particular purpose.” It also established that “[the] effet futile sought by the Court through this order is therefore related not only to redressing the victim’s memory, but also to achieving better living conditions and services for the Community,” which is why the aim of this measure implies that no methods may be applied which entail the lack of “the Community’s effective control and full decision power over the funds which must be delivered as ordered by the Court.” 18. The representatives pointed out that “the creation of a trust agreement implies