indicated that, in the investigation of the facts, the Prosecution had merely produced evidence that had been obtained already and, in the proceedings, “the decision to obtain evidence that should be obtained in an integrated manner is divided up in different court orders.” They also indicated that the information presented by the State is insufficient. Regarding the appeal for review, they reiterated previous observations regarding the inadmissibility of using mechanisms of domestic law, such as the preclusion of the criminal investigation, as a means of obstructing justice and compliance with the Court’s decisions. They added that, if the State’s argument about the impossibility of filing this appeal is accepted, not only would the Court’s orders be disregarded, but it would also confer “the effect of a final judgment on a decision of the military criminal justice system that investigated crimes which constitute grave human rights violations,” as well as ignoring the basic principle of international customary law, pacta sunt servanda. 9. The Commission “observ[ed] with concern that the information presented by […] Colombia provides no additional information that is relevant to compliance with the judgments, but merely repeats information already submitted to the Court.” Regarding the appeal for review, it referred to the content of the Court’s order of November 17, 2009. It concluded that the information provided by the State failed to reveal “that it has adopted any measure to comply with the pending obligations.” 10. The Court has already indicated that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for human rights violations is among the positive measures that the States must adopt to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention,5 in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof. This duty is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on their offer of probative elements.6 11. The State informed the Court that, between January 2009 and August 2011, it had: (a) carried out a judicial inspection of an office of the National Police; (b) conducted a psychiatric evaluation of a witness; (c) ordered that several individuals be located, and found and interviewed some of them; (d) ordered that investigators be mandated to obtain a copy of the civil registry of deaths based on presumed decease, and related documents concerning the disappearance of Isidro Caballero Delgado; (e) made a judicial inspection of the file of the above-mentioned witness, and (f) ordered judicial inspections of different places and made those inspections. In addition, the State indicated that the “Prosecutor General’s Office, through the 15th Prosecutor of the Human Rights Unit, is trying to gather new evidence that will permit filing an appeal for review, allowing the proceedings to be reopened, as well as evidence that allows certain individuals to be investigated. 12. The Court observes that the information provided by the State since the last order on monitoring compliance lists a series of actions requested by the investigating body, without confirmation that these actions were implemented in some cases. In this regard, the Court finds that the information presented by the State on the activities carried out in this 5 Cf. Case of Velazquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Merits. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 167, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 112. 6 Cf. Case of Velazquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, supra note 5, para. 177, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and reparations. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 184. 4