6 24. The representatives considered that the questions posed by the State “reveal a certain indetermination as to the reparation measure ordered, and therefore it would be important that the Court specifies a compliance modality.” They pointed out that, “the measure clearly ponders that the “facts” are released to the public.” As to that, they considered that “it is necessary to release the facts set forth by the judgments at domestic level, and not only the punishments or the operative parts”, which would be “consistent with what the Court normally orders with regard to its own judgments.” On the other hand, the representatives expressed that “the compliance modality must be similar to that used by the Court to release the facts set forth and the punishments imposed by its own judgments.” In this sense, they suggested that, “the Court obliges the State to periodically publish (every 6 or 12 months), in a newspaper of national reach, a summary of the procedural progress and the judgments rendered (facts as well as convictions or acquittals) in compliance with the obligation to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible for the La Rochela massacre”. Finally, they requested that “[t]his summary is previously shown to the victims´representatives." 25. With regard to what has been requested by the State, even though it does not strictly constitute a hypothesis of Judgment interpretation but rather a discussion regarding its compliance, the Court considers it is convenient to clarify the meaning and scope of this reparation. 26. Among the satisfaction measures and the guarantees of non-repetition adopted by the Court in its judgment, the obligation to investigate the facts which generated the violations of the instant case was included, as well as the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for them. 7 After stating some precisions as to the scope of this obligation, the Court pointed out the following: 295. In the light of the precedent considerations, within a reasonable term, the State must efficiently conduct the criminal proceedings in litigation and those which may be instituted, and it must take all the measures necessary to allow the elucidation of the facts of the instant case, in order to determine the responsibility of those who participated in said violations, taking into account what has been expressed by this Court in paragraphs 151 to 198 of the [...] Judgment. The results of these proceedings shall be released to the public by the State, in such a way that the Colombian society is informed of the truth regarding the facts of the massacre of La Rochela. 27. For the instant case, the court clarifies that, in the context of the ordered reparation, the meaning of the expression “results of the criminal proceedings” corresponds to the criminal judgments of final nature, which lead to the end of the procedure and resolve the main controversy, whether these are acquittals or convictions. These results must be made known to the public, so that society may know the facts analyzed and, should it be the case, those responsible for them. The release mechanisms shall be analyzed in the context of the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. VI AS TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES 28. The State expressed that the Judgment ordered the payment of $2,000 (two thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency as expenses for each family group of the deceased victims and for Mr. Arturo Salgado. With 7 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre, note 1 above, pars. 287 to 295.