5 the Public Prosecutor’s Office, about which the State has furnished no information. In relation to this investigation, they observed that no significant progress has been made and that the participation of representatives was obstructed for one year by the prosecutor in charge of the investigation. The State has remained silent in this regard. 16. That the Court deems it positive that the criminal proceedings brought before the 41st Criminal Court of the Circuit of Bogotá have been concluded through a judgment entered by the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá, which judgment is final (supra Considering clauses 10 and 11). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court does not know whether the sentences imposed by the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá are being executed, and whether the results of these criminal proceedings have been published as ordered in the Judgment on reparations. 17. That in order to assess the effective compliance with this operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations, the Tribunal needs updated and detailed information on the measures adopted by the State in this regard. Therefore, the State must inform the Court 1) whether the sentences imposed by the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá are being executed; 2) whether the results of the relevant criminal proceedings have been published, and 3) whether a preliminary investigation into the facts of the instant case is being conducted at the National Human Rights Unit of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. * * * 18. That in the Judgment on reparations, the Court ordered the State to take all necessary steps to identify N.N./Moisés, a victim in the instant case, as well as to locate, exhume and deliver his remains to his next of kin (operative paragraph two of the Judgment on reparations of November 26, 2002). 19. That in its Order of November 17, 2004, the Court required the State to report in detail on the measures adopted to comply with operative paragraph two of the Judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen clause 3). 20. That in its reports the State detailed the steps taken between the months of June 2001 and January 2005 at Mocoa and Las Palmeras to locate the victim’s remains. Said steps included searches and excavations in cemeteries and surrounding areas, as well as interviews and expert analyses. The State informed that, as from the year 2005, entering the area became impossible due to serious disturbances of public order in the region. However, in its report of October 6, 2006, Colombia held that the Office of the Solicitor General of the Republic was taking steps to locate the remains of N.N./Moisés “but to no avail” (supra Having Seen clause 4). 21. That the Commission considered that the information furnished by the State on the measures adopted to locate the victim’s remains was not detailed enough and stressed that the State has not taken the necessary steps to locate said victim’s next of kin. In this regard, the Commission emphasized that complying with the payment of compensation to the victim’s next of kin is directly linked to locating them (supra Having Seen clause 6).