the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, States must ensure that the rulings set forth in the Court’s decisions are implemented at the domestic level.1 The aforementioned obligation to inform the Court of the measures adopted in compliance with its rulings includes the duty of the State to report on the measures adopted in this regard. Timely observance of its obligation to report to the Court on how it is complying with each of the measures ordered is essential for evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole2. A. Obligation to effectively investigate the facts of this case, within a reasonable period, in order to identify, prosecute and punish all the perpetrators and masterminds of the violations committed. A.1) Regarding the State’s obligation to report on the investigation of the facts 3. Before proceeding to evaluate compliance with the obligation to investigate, the Court must first rule on specific arguments offered by the State regarding the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction to monitor compliance with this measure of reparation. 4. In its last report on compliance with the Judgment, the State noted that “the appropriate forum for debating matters related to the current criminal investigation into the facts under consideration, […is] in the context of the criminal procedure itself, by way of the procedural remedies offered.” It emphasized, inter alia, that: (i) the Court does not have the authority to examine and decide on aspects related to procedural matters, except when a violation of due process is alleged, and (ii) the right to due process of the accused should be ensured, so that matters that affect them are not discussed without their participation. Prior to said report, in November 2009, the State had indicated that the criminal proceeding was subject to confidentiality, without elaborating further on the matter. 5. In this regard, the representatives pointed out that the State’s arguments do not allow the Court to assess whether or not the State has fulfilled its obligation to investigate, in accordance with the relevant international standards. They explained that in providing information on the investigation, they do not expect the Court “to replace the Colombian criminal justice system,” but rather to assess compliance with this obligation. The representatives stated that the confidentiality of the criminal proceeding has led to a failure to provide the Court with information, “constituting […] an obstacle,” to the assessment of the measures ordered. Moreover, they noted that withholding this information affects the principle of equality of arms and due process, “as well as undermining –if not annulling- the effectiveness” of monitoring compliance with the Judgment. They stated that they are aware of the consequences of making public specific procedural information, and therefore consider that the information “should be conveyed to the Court and to the parties in the proceeding, but in some other way to third parties.” 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60 and 131, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, considering paragraph 2. 2 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 17, 2004; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 27, 2012, considering paragraph 3. 3