10 * * * 38. With regards to the investigation of the facts that resulted in the violations in the instant case, both the State and the representatives have submitted certain information to the Court. 39. The Court calls to mind that during the processing of the instant case, the State affirmed that it “would initiate the respective investigations into the actions of the officials who intervened in the proceeding, and that after the corresponding judicial and administrative assessment, it would determine the individual responsibilities.”10 At that time the Court accepted and took cognizance of the State’s affirmation. 40. In this regard, the Court considers that when it “takes cognizance” of the State’s commitments offered in the international venue, it does so in the understanding that the State, in good faith, offered to make them effective independently of that ordered by the Judgment.11 “Taking cognizance” of those commitments does not imply ordering the performance of the specific measure or action to which the State freely compromised. Therefore, those commitments are independent of the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment. 41. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the investigation of the facts of the instant case does not constitute a reparation measure ordered by the Court in its Judgment, therefore its compliance is not subject to monitoring, without detriment to the law that assists victims or their representatives to demand compliance with the commitments freely contracted by the State domestically. * * * 42. In addition, the representatives reported that with regards to the obligation to eliminate Mr. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez from the public records in which they still appear with a criminal record (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment), “[t]his item of the Judgment cannot be considered complied with, as [there is] new information […] that allow[s] them to state the contrary.” They indicated that “attorneys specialized in the management of INTERPOL information” have told them that said body manages a record with different categories identified by colors according to severity, and that “apparently, in the records of consulates and embassies there is still information linking Mr. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez [w]ith the crime of drug trafficking, which causes great detriment.” They indicated that they had requested the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights for a detailed explanation in this regard, and that they “express[ed] their full disagreement with the attitude adopted by police authorities, who had not provided complete information on the criminal records.” 43. Mr. Lapo Íñiguez mentioned that regarding the proceedings to eliminate his name from the public records, “he did them in person” prior to the public hearing held in the instant case. 44. The Court advises that the measure mentioned by the representatives was declared complied with in the Order of April 29, 2009, and at that time the representatives 10 11 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 6, para. 256. Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 7, 2009. Series C No. 201, para. 50.