10 who fail to comply with it but also entails risks for the investigation based on the disregard of the right to due process and the good name of the people being investigated.” In addition, as to certain aspects mentioned by the representatives, such as the alleged lack of accusation for the crime of torture or association of certain persons with the investigation, the State consider that it was essential to discuss those aspects within the scope of the criminal procedure and using the appropriate procedural remedies, inasmuch as the representatives play the role of 'partie civile’ in the action by virtue of which they have the possibility of presenting requests and complaints about the proceedings that are being conducted. It also mentioned that, unless violation of the due process is alleged, this Tribunal is not allowed to analyze in depth and decide on the procedural actions, in respect for the right to due process of the accused, which include the right not to discuss matters that may adversely affect them without their participation and because this is within the scope of the domestic procedure and, in this case, of the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, who, according to the information of the case file, shall make the appropriate legal decisions. Otherwise, according to the State, the success of an objective and sound investigation may be jeopardized, inasmuch as the accused may request the dismissal of the investigation and may succeed. 9. That the representatives stated that the determination of the facts subjectmatter of the investigation and the debate over the way in which the State is or is not complying with its obligation to investigate form part of the allegations that they are allowed to present in their capacity as legal representatives, but that this does not impede them from informing the Court in order to assess the status of compliance. They do not consider that this shall adversely affect the accused in the investigation. 10. That this Tribunal is aware of the risk implied in making public certain information related to the internal investigations, regarding the effectiveness of the investigation in itself as well as the people involved or interested in the investigation. Moreover, there may be several hypothesis or situations related to the publication of the information presented within the framework of the case, as to the material aspect of the information and the moment or procedural stage of the case as well. 11. That during the processing of the merits, when the State was held responsible for alleged violations of the American Convention and other applicable treaties, in recent cases the State has alleged the reservation of information during the stage of investigations, in order not to present to the Court certain documentation requested regarding domestic criminal procedures. In this case, the Tribunal deemed that the State had to forward the documentation so required, by informing about the reservation and the need, expediency or relevance of keeping the due confidentiality of the information. In those cases, the Court considered that the State's refusal to submit the documents cannot be held to the victims' detriment, but to the State's; therefore the Tribunal could consider as proven the facts that were only provable by means of the evidence the State denied to forward. 5 12. That during the procedure of monitoring compliance with the Judgment, the role of the Tribunal is no longer to determine the facts of the case and its 5 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 98 to 100. See also, mutatis mutandi, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) V. Mexico. Court’s Order of January 19, 2009 (request for expansion of alleged victims and refusal to forward documentary evidence), para. 59.