5 document, inasmuch as the investigation could be jeopardized". In this respect, the State referred to the arguments presented within the framework of the procedure to monitor compliance with other judgments delivered by this Tribunal. 12. That this Tribunal is aware of the risk implied in making public certain information related to the internal investigations, regarding the effectiveness of the investigation in itself as well as the people involved or interested in the investigation. Nevertheless, during the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment, the role of the Tribunal is no longer to determine the facts of the case and the possible international responsibility of the State, but to verify only the compliance with the obligations stipulated in the ruling by the responsible state. Therefore, the Court needs to have the necessary information, which must be provided by the State, the Commission and the victims or their representatives. In this sense, the General Assembly to the OAS repeated that, “in order for the Tribunal to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, the States Parties [to the Convention] need to provide, in time fashion, the information requested [by the Court].5 In this way, for the sake of complying with its role in monitoring compliance with the measures of reparation regarding the violations committed to the detriment of the victims and in the presence of both parties to an action, in each case, the Court shall assess the need, convenience or relevance of maintaining the confidentiality of the information furnished in relation to its use in the order, but not in relation to the parties’ access to it. 13. That in the instant case, Colombia has submitted certain information related to the investigations, which has been transmitted and learnt by the representatives and the Commission, but the State requests the Tribunal not to publish such information in the monitoring compliance orders. The Court shall take into account all the information provided and shall include in this Order only the essential part of such information, in order to determine the effectiveness of the investigations into the facts of this case, in the current context of the investigations into serious human rights violations in Colombia. The Court has pointed out, as in previous cases, that it is not a criminal court, which can analyze the criminal responsibility of individuals,6 and therefore, the Court shall not analyze, in this stage, all the dimensions of the investigations and internal proceedings, but only its effectiveness based on what was established in the Judgment. * * * 14. That the Court determined in the Judgment that in order to comply with the obligation to investigate and punish the responsible for the serious human rights violations in this case, Colombia must: (a) remove all the obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain impunity; (b) use all available means to expedite the investigation and judicial proceedings, and (c) grant guarantees of adequate safety to the victims, investigators, witnesses, human rights defenders, judicial employees, prosecutors and other agents of 5 OAS General Assembly. AG/RES Resolution. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C N° 4, para. 134; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008. Series C N° 181; para. 40; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C Nº 180, para. 37.