5 obligations ordered by the latter is essential to assess the progress made in compliance with the Judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That regarding its obligation to investigate the facts reported, as well as to identify, prosecute and punish the perpetrators (first operative paragraph of the Judgment of September 12, 2005), the State requested the Court to “[…] declare that Colombia is complying with [this] reparation measure” and to acknowledge that relevant steps have been taken with a view to investigating, prosecuting and, if applicable, punishing those responsible for such facts. In this regard, it informed on the order issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on September 7, 2008, wherein it found the appeal for review to be admissible and annulled all the steps and procedures ordered by the Military Criminal Courts, wherefore “[…] the decision [rendered in favor of the defendant Luis Gonzaga Enciso-Barón] ceased to be deemed res judicata and, consequently, the proceeding was reopened to be heard again in full compliance with judicial guarantees […].” Regarding the possibility to bring an action for review against the decision precluding the investigation adopted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the other defendant, Ricardo Dalel-Barón, the State informed at the hearing that the Prosecutor’s Office was “planning to file” such an action. 9. That regarding the foregoing the representatives pointed out that they appreciated the decision adopted by the Supreme Court as regards the appeal for review, but they expressed “[…] their concern and confusion regarding the decision of the State to file an action for review only regarding one of the perpetrators of the torture inflicted to [Mr.] Gutiérrez-Soler […]. [T]hough at the hearing the State […] alleged that ‘the Prosecutor’s Office is planning to file another action for review regarding Mr. Dalel-Barón, in its brief […] it did not offer much information in relation thereto.” They further pointed out that “[…] besides pointing out at the hearing that the Prosecutor […] had a ‘working plan,’ the State in its brief did not refer to the specific steps taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office following the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in order to prosecute and punish Colonel EncisoBarón.” Furthermore, they expressed their concern for the eventual conclusion of the proceeding as a result of the application of the statute of limitations, based on two prior cases submitted to the Inter-American System in which Colombian judges applied the statute of limitations. Finally, the representatives informed that “[…] on March 9, the National Human Rights Unit Fifty-third Public Prosecutor’s Office which is conducting the criminal investigation refrained from issuing an arrest warrant against Mr. Enciso-Barón[, which] is not consistent with the ample evidence produced in the case, limits the progress achieved by the judiciary, and constitutes a situation of risk for the victims, witnesses and the integrity of the criminal proceedings.” For these reasons, the representatives consider that compliance with this obligation by the State is still pending. 10. That the Commission “assesses positively the steps taken by the State in order to overcome the existing hindrances to prosecuting Mr. Enciso-Barón [… and] expects that the State acts in a similar way regarding Mr. Dalel-Barón, alleged coperpetrator of the torture inflicted to [Mr. Gutiérrez-Soler] […].” 11. That the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia found the appeal for review to be admissible regarding the defendant Luis Gonzaga-Enciso-Barón. In this regard,