9. The State reported that the Attorney General’s Office “has carried out extensive activities” in the investigation of the facts of this case, which was in the preliminary stage. In November 2009, Colombia reported that “among the main activities carried out,” it heard and ordered preliminary statements or further statements to be taken from three individuals on March 19 and 26 and May 26, 2009. Subsequently, in January 2011, the State indicated that the Attorney General’s Office sought to “determine the responsibility” of three military officers, for which purpose it received five statements, and issued a decision closing the criminal proceedings against one of the military officers investigated, due to his death. The State also reported on several actions carried out as part of the investigation, such as corroborating information with different judicial bodies; making inquiries to locate potential witnesses with a view to taking their statements; efforts to identify persons potentially linked to the case; and issuing orders to obtain specific statements. Finally, the State reiterated that “the relevant authorities would continue with their best efforts to investigate, prosecute and, where applicable, punish those responsible for the events in this case.” Likewise, it “promise[d] to report to the Inter-American Court in a timely manner on [any] new developments made in this regard.” 10. The representatives noted that the State has provided no further information regarding compliance with this measure of reparation, since they were the ones who sent copies of the file on the domestic proceeding to this Court. They recalled that “time is running out for the right to truth and justice in this case,” citing the example of the death of one of the alleged perpetrators “who may have known the whereabouts of the disappeared persons.” Moreover, the representatives emphasized the delay by the Attorney General’s Office in carrying out several procedures recommended by the Human Rights Investigations Group of the National Office of the Technical Investigation Unit, which conducted several inquiries that helped to locate three witnesses in October 2010. The representatives also stressed that the latest facts provided by the State in its report of September 2011 do not reflect the current status of the investigation, but “merely [constitute] orders given by the Attorney General’s Office,” without any results being reported which, in their opinion, demonstrates “stagnation in the current process.” They also noted that the Attorney General’s Office has not reactivated the arrest warrants nor has it “resolved the legal situation” of two military officers, in respect of whom the Attorney General’s Office expanded the inquiry and charged them with forced disappearance in September 2008. Finally, the representatives insisted that: a) there is no record of any significant progress made in the criminal proceedings; b) after more than twenty-four years since the events took place and with considerable evidence gathered over the last twenty years that incriminates two former military officers in the crime, these individuals have not been prosecuted, and c) the Attorney General’s Office has not carried out investigations regarding other perpetrators, including paramilitary commanders subject to the justice and peace process, against whom “there is substantial material evidence” of their participation in the events of this case. 11. The Commission stated that although it noted the State’s willingness to investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible, it considered that the information provided by the State “does not reveal substantial progress” in the investigation. It noted that no “systematized information” exists regarding the investigations to be able to determine whether, subsequent to the delivery of the Judgment, the legal measures taken are sufficient to guarantee effective access to justice and ensure that all claims of impunity in this case “are definitively eradicated.” Finally, the Commission noted “with concern” that the information presented by the State in its last report is incomplete, as it does not indicate the date on which the proceedings took place, does not provide copies of these proceedings and does not report on their results and the follow-up mechanisms. 5