6. The Commission stated that “it is difficult to understand” the nature of the State’s arguments. It stated that it is “indispensable” that the State provide information on the progress of the investigations. It recalled the importance of providing the Court with detailed information and giving the parties the opportunity to present observations in this regard. 7. As to the arguments offered by the State, the Court reiterates the comments made in its Order of July 8, 2009, that during the stage of monitoring compliance with its decisions, the Court’s role is not to determine the facts of the case and its consequences, or to analyze all aspects of the investigations and domestic proceedings, but rather to verify the level of compliance with the provisions of the Judgment. 3 The Court emphasizes that without the relevant information from the State, this Court cannot effectively monitor compliance with the measures of reparation and the implementation of its decisions. It is pertinent to recall that the State has an obligation to provide sufficient and necessary information on the measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s judgments.4 Similarly, the Court recalls that the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated “the need for States Parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information required by the Court in order to enable it to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments.”5 8. Furthermore, this Court reiterates that it understands the risks associated with the publication of certain information on the domestic investigations, for which reason it will take into consideration all the information provided, but will include only what is essential in this Order, so as to determine the level of compliance with this operative paragraph. In fulfilling its role of monitoring compliance with the measures of reparation, and having regard to the adversarial principle, in each case the Court will assess the need, appropriateness and importance of maintaining the confidentiality of the information provided in terms of its use in the Order, but not in terms of access to it by the parties involved. Likewise, the Court reiterates that when the records of an investigation are confidential, the State is required to send the copies requested confirming that fact and explaining the need, appropriateness or importance of maintaining the confidentiality of that information. This will be carefully evaluated by the Court, in order to include it in the body of evidence of the case, respecting the principle of adversarial proceedings, as appropriate.6 A.2) Regarding the investigation of the facts 3 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures . Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, considering paragraphs 12, 13 and 15. 4 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, considering paragraph 5, and Case of Blanco Romero v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2011, considering paragraph 38. 5 Cf. inter alia, General Assembly, Order AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10) approved at the Fourth Plenary Session, held on June 8, 2010, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Operative paragraph 4, and General Assembly, Order AG/RES. 2652 (XL-O/11) approved at the Fourth Plenary Session, held on June 7, 2011, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Operative paragraph 5. 6 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 100; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al.v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 18, 2012, para. 12. 4