investigation is insufficient and does not include details of those that were implemented, such as their purpose and results. Furthermore, it failed to forward copies of the main proceedings or any other document that would allow the Court to assess the actions taken and the alleged progress indicated in the reports, even though the Court has requested this documentation (supra having seen paragraph 10). 13. In addition, the Court observes that the representatives and the Inter-American Commission have indicated, among other matters, that the information presented by the State does not reveal substantial progress or concrete results, and that Colombia merely ordered procedures that had been implemented previously, such as taking statements from various individuals, or finding others; that some procedures that were ordered have not been carried out yet and that, during the investigation proceedings, the orders for procedures that should be taken together are divided into different decisions. 14. The Court recalls that it had requested the State to provide updated information on compliance with the pending measures in its last Order, as well as on two subsequent occasions (supra having seen paragraphs 5 and 11). Despite these requests, and that more than two years have elapsed since the Court’s last order, and more than 15 years since the judgment on reparations and costs (supra having seen paragraph 1), the State has not presented substantial information that permits the Court to verify progress in compliance with this measure. 15. In this regard, Colombia must take all the necessary actions to comply promptly and effectively with the measures ordered by the Court in the judgments. This obligation includes the State’s duty to provide information on the actions taken to comply with the operative paragraphs of the judgment. The Court finds it necessary to reiterate that prompt observance of the State’s obligations to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each measure ordered by the Court is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole. Moreover, this is not fulfilled with the mere formal presentation of a document; but rather, constitutes a two-fold obligation that, for effective compliance, requires the formal presentation of a document within the established time frame, containing specific, true, detailed and updated information on the issues to which this obligation refers.7 2. Without adequate information from the State, this Court is unable to exercise its function of monitoring the execution of its judgments. It is worth recalling that providing sufficient information on the measures taken is a State obligation established by this Court.8 The General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated that “the need for the States Parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court in order to enable it to meet fully its obligation to report on compliance with its judgments.”9 7 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, seventh considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Blanco Romero v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2011, thirty-eighth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. inter alia, General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10) approved at the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010, entitled “Observations and recommendations on the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights,” fourth operative paragraph, and General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2652 (XL-O/11) approved at the fourth plenary session, held on June 7, 2011, entitled “Observations and recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” fifth operative paragraph. 5