officer (retired General); (iii) an order was issued to obtain six statements, one of which was apparently received, while the Court has not been informed of the receipt of the others; (iv) an order was issued to conduct inquiries to locate witnesses or persons possibly involved in the facts of instant case, regarding which the Court received no information after the instructions were issued in July 2011 or regarding the results obtained after these inquiries, and (v) an order was issued to notify the head of the National Unit for Justice and Peace to report on whether demobilized persons had provided information on the facts of this case, without the Court being informed on whether this information had in fact been requested and the results. In this regard, the Court reiterated that the State’s obligation to comply with the Court’s decisions includes the obligation to provide it with sufficient information in order to assess effective compliance with the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment (supra considering paragraph 7). 15. This Court takes cognizance of the proceedings carried out by the State and appreciates the fact that after the Judgment was issued, the State took the important step of transferring the investigation to the ordinary jurisdiction,12 bearing in mind one of the violations of due process and judicial protection declared in the Judgment (supra considering paragraph 12). Nevertheless, it notes that, according to the information provided by the State itself, twenty-four years and nine months after the events, and nearly eight years after notification of the Judgment, the process remains at the investigative stage and no significant progress has been reported to the Court. In particular, the Court points out that no member of the security forces has been prosecuted for the violations committed against the 19 victims, even though the Court considered proven that in this case “the ‘paramilitaries’ had the support of senior military leaders in the activities preceding the detention of the victims and when they committed the crimes against the latter.”13 The Court recalss that in its Judgment it ordered Colombia to investigate effectively the facts of this case, in order to identify, prosecute and punish all the perpetrators and masterminds responsible for the violations committed to the detriment of 19 tradesmen, for the criminal and any other effects that may result from the investigation of the facts”. In particular, the Court emphasized that the “competent ordinary criminal courts must investigate and punish the members of the security forces who took part in the actions.”14 16. Likewise, according to the information provided by the parties during the monitoring compliance stage, the Court confirms that no other criminal proceeding or trial has been initiated against other alleged perpetrators of the acts, other than the five civilians who had already been convicted at the time the Judgment was issued (supra considering paragraph 13). Therefore, the Court considers that the State must continue to investigate the matter with the utmost due diligence in order to identify all those responsible, both perpetrators and masterminds, for the violations committed against the 19 victims. As noted previously, the Court considers it important to stress that a trial that is carried to conclusion and fulfills its purpose is the clearest sign of the lack of tolerance of human rights violations, since it 12 On March 6, 2008, the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a decision regarding the appeal by the Attorney General 24 Criminal Court II, wherein it decided to: (i) declare the actions of the military criminal justice system invalid in the criminal proceedings against members of the public security force related to facts of instant case, in particular, the decisions of 1997 and 1998 wherein orders were issued and confirmed on cessation acts of the proceeding against four former military officials, as well as (ii) submitting the case to the National Human Rights Unit and the International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Attorney General’s Office, for continuation with investigations. Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Considering paragraph 14. 13 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 86.b. 14 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 263. 7