14 way in which the State is conducting the investigation. In this regard, the Court reiterates that it will not ask the parties to provide information on this aspect again. However, this does not relieve the State of its obligation to investigate the reported facts that gave rise to these measures, in the terms of Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 44. Despite the above, the Court recalls that, during the public hearing held on January 29, 2010, in this matter, the State “made an undertaking before the Court” “to address an official note to the Justice and Peace Unit for the Justice and Peace group to take charge of investigating the facts in which the members of the self-defense groups that operated in the zone of Meta were involved, and specifically asking them about their possible participation in these facts.”19 As a result of this, in its Order of February 2, 2010, the Court asked the State to provide information on this undertaking.20 45. In this regard, the State advised that the National Justice and Peace Unit of the Prosecutor General‟s Office had determined that “to date” none of the candidates for Law 975 of 2005 “had mentioned the murder of Josué Giraldo Cardona.” 46. The representatives indicated that the information provided by the State “surprised” them, because “at least one of the leaders of the paramilitary groups who were in the region of the Llanos Orientales was providing information by way of unsworn statements (versiones libres) and his assertions included [...] the murder of members of the Patriotic Union and other leftist leaders.” They recalled that “while taking unsworn statements, prosecutors may ask questions about specific facts,” and that an effective investigation should include all the activities destined to shed light on the facts. They considered that the State “has not taken the necessary measures to elucidate the facts and punish those responsible, despite having information about the possible participation of paramilitaries in the violations perpetrated against the members of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta and being able to question at least one demobilized paramilitary leader. 47. The Court takes note of the information provided by the State, and also the observations of the representatives on this issue. Bearing in mind the terms of the undertaking made by Colombia, the Court asks it to advise the Court whether it has indeed requested the Justice and Peace Unit of the Prosecutor General‟s Office to take charge of the investigation into the events that occurred in the zone of Meta, and to ask those who appear before it questions specifically about the facts related to these measures. THEREFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the authority granted by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 27 and 31 of the Court‟s Rules of Procedure, 21 DECIDES: 19 Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 8, thirtieth and thirty-fourth considering paragraphs. 20 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 8, second operative paragraph. 21 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty-fifth regular session, held from November 16 to 28, 2009.