8 22. That the Commission argued that the State failed to submit thorough information which “allows to infer the status of compliance [with] the [J]udgment[s] or further details on the appeal for review of the 1990 acquittal.” Furthermore, it emphasized the passage of more than eleven years since the issue of the Judgment of reparations and costs, and it argued that it considered it was necessary that the State adopted measures to remove the obstacles which keep on delaying the compliance with what has been ordered. 23. That the Court observes that since the last monitoring Order to date, that is, for more than 21 months, the State failed to provide information on any important progress of the investigation started at the Unidad de Derechos Humanos de la Fiscalía General de la Nación [Human Rights Unit of the National Solicitor General] as to the clarification of the facts and the eventual ascertainment of criminal liabilities. 24. That, furthermore, the Court considers that the information submitted by the State on the activity developed in this investigation is insufficient and does not include further details on the proceedings effected, such as the date thereof, purpose or results; neither has it forwarded copies of the main records or any other document which allows the Court to assess what has been done and the alleged progress indicated in the reports. 25. That the Court additionally observes that the representatives have pointed out that there are proceedings which have been ordered one or two years ago by the acting prosecutor, but they have not yet been performed. Furthermore, the representatives stated that the procedural progress by the civil party in the domestic process was allegedly hampered. As to that, the Court remembers that in prior Orders in the instant case, as well as in its case law, it has stated that the victims next of kin shall have total access and capacity to act in all the stages and instances of said investigations, in accordance with the domestic law and the rules of the American Convention.”7 26. That with regard to the appeal for review, the Court again states that in the instant case it found a violation against the rights to life and personal liberty, set forth in Articles 4 and 7 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of said treaty, and that, in accordance with its case law, the duty to investigate the facts on the part of the State arises from said violations. On the other hand, the Court considers it is desirable to repeat what it has stated in prior Orders8 in the sense that: […] as set forth in its case law, […] it is inadmissible to appeal to any obstacles of domestic law by means of which it is expected to prevent the investigation and the punishment of those responsible for violations against human rights […]. Any interpretation on the contrary would deny the effective application of the American Convention provisions in the domestic set of rules of the States Parties, and the international proceeding would be deprived of one of its main functions, as, instead of conducting to justice, it would be promoting the impunity of those responsible for such violations […]. In accordance with the above, Colombia cannot invoke provisions of domestic law, such as the procedural figure of preclusion of the criminal investigation, in order to 7 Cf. Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003, Considering Clause No. eleven, and Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, supra note 6, Considering Clause No. four. 8 Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana, supra note 7, Considering Clauses No. nine and twelve, and Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana, supra note 6, Considering Clause No. 24.