12 to certain issues mentioned by the representatives, such as the alleged lack of accusation for the crime of torture or the association of certain people with the investigation, the State considered that those issues should be laid before a criminal court and that it is an exclusive authority of the prosecutor to assess such matters (supra Considering clause 8). As to other results, the State mentioned that it was not possible to take the extension of the preliminary examination statement made by an accused former officer at the hospital due to his health condition; therefore, the prosecutor’s office shall request an expert assessment to confirm what was informed. Besides, the State pointed out that it has brought charges of forced disappearance against two state officers, based on what was determined in the Judgment. As to the delay in the investigation, the State observed that this is a complex procedure and that the prosecutor in charge of the case is dealing with important challenges due to the passage of time, the different versions of the witnesses, the lack of identification of other possible participants, among other situations. Moreover, it pointed out that steps are being taken to include in the court file the information furnished at the proceedings conducted before the Justice and Peace Unit. Finally, the State requested the Court to declare that the State is complying with this measure of reparation. 15. That the representatives stated that they acknowledge and value the judgment of March 2008 of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the appeal for review was filed more than one year after the delivery of the Judgment and the decision upheld up to that moment. After the delivery of such decision, no other decision has been made in order to determine the level of responsibility of the members of the law enforcement agencies regarding the facts of the case, there are no accusations or arrest orders and only two military officers have rendered preliminary examination statements; therefore, little progress has been made. Moreover, they considered it is essential that the criminal investigations clarify whether torture has been committed among those facts and that the information resulting from the application of the Justice and Peace Law [Ley de Justicia y Paz] be entered into the case, since the statements made by former demobilized paramilitary officers would reveal information related to paramilitary officers who could be accused in this case. Furthermore, the representatives asserted that “the lack of seriousness, efficacy and promptness in the investigations keeps adversely affecting the rights of the victims and the determination of the truth which is a right enjoyed by the entire Colombian society.” 16. That the Commission repeated several of the allegations made by the representatives and stated that “it acknowledges and values the importance of the ruling of the [Supreme Court of Justice] in order to obtain justice in the case at hand" by establishing the competent tribunal without discussing the specific case. In addition, it mentioned that, however, no information was furnished on the disciplinary and criminal proceedings that are being conducted before the ordinary courts; therefore, it considered it was necessary for the State to inform, in detail, on the total administrative and judicial proceedings carried out in relation to the people who could be held responsible in the instant case. 17. That this Court values the aforesaid decision of March 6, 2008 handed down by the Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, by which it was declared all the proceedings conducted before the military criminal court in this case to be unfounded and it was ordered the reopening of the investigation before the ordinary court. The Tribunal acknowledges the judicial value of this decision in