8 representatives as far as whether interest in arrears is due as of the date on which the beneficiary reached the age of consent. In that regard, the Court finds that it is the State’s responsibility to comply with the reparations ordered by the Judgment in a timely fashion, which includes making payment of damages by the deadline, in this case, the date on which Iván Caballero Parra reached the age of consent. The InterAmerican Court deems it necessary that in its next report, the State submit information on this operative paragraph that is still pending compliance. 19. That in regard to the interest on the Certificate of Deposit, the representatives stated that it has not been received by the legal representative of Iván Andrés Caballero Parra. The Tribunal received the documentation supplied by the State in the monitoring hearing on the transfers made and deems it necessary to receive current information on this from the representatives and from the InterAmerican Commission. * * * 20. That regarding the criminal investigation on the facts in this case, in the hearing for the monitoring of compliance, the State recalled the various investigative measures taken in the past, which did not produce results, and reported that there is an investigation underway in the Human Rights Unit of the State Prosecutor’s office. Likewise, the State mentioned that there have been meetings with the Commission of Colombian Jurists to evaluate the legal aspects related to the future filing of an appeal for review. Regarding said appeal, during the monitoring hearing, the State reported that at this time such filing was not possible and that it was an extraordinary judicial action that is subject to specific causes of action provided for by law. The State reported that it was working toward meeting the legality requirements and stated that the fact that the Judgment on the Merits in this cased did not find violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention could be an obstacle to the success of said appeal. This is because the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that an international judicial body has declared a “protuberant” lack of compliance of the State’s obligation to investigate human rights violations impartially and in a serious manner. The State argued that it is making its best effort to strengthen the arguments for an eventual appeal for review and that it would present said appeal when all the necessary elements are in place. Otherwise, it could be counterproductive to the State’s compliance with its obligation to investigate. Finally, during the hearing, the State noted its willingness and openness to work with the representatives on this subject. 21. That in the hearing, the representatives stressed the lack of results of the investigations that have been carried out. They state that even if the Judgment on the Merits and the Judgment on Reparations and Costs form the normative framework that binds the State, the Orders for the monitoring of compliance issued by the Court form an integral part of the framework for compliance with the obligations established in said Judgments. They called the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that the State reported that for the moment it would not file the appeal for review due to its understanding that the appeal’s legality requirements have not been met. That is to say, the State would be alleging domestic law in order to avoid taking up, in a serious manner, the investigations in this case. The representatives expressed that the State should consider filing this appeal related to the criminal investigations in this case, both in civilian and military jurisdictions. In addition, they