7 observance of this stipulation not only implies sanctions for the officials that ignore it, but also risks for the investigation due to the failure to recognize the right to a due process and the good name of those being investigated.” Likewise, the State indicated that “the matters of the investigation itself shall be discussed mainly within the realm itself of the criminal proceedings and through the procedural means offered by it” and it pointed out that the representatives of the victims have the quality of a civil party in the proceedings. Similarly, it considered that this Tribunal cannot specifically analyze or make decisions regarding procedural actions, unless a violation to the due process is argued. 8. That this Tribunal is aware of certain risks of making public certain information regarding internal investigations, both in reference to the effectiveness itself of the investigation, as well as with respect to the people involved or interested in the same. At the same time, several hypothesis or situations regarding the publicity of the information presented within the framework of contentious cases can be presented, both in the material aspect of the information and in reference to the procedural stage in which the case is. 9. That during the processing of the merits, where the State’s responsibility for the alleged violations of the American Convention or other applicable treaties is determined, in recent cases the respondent State has alleged the reservation of information in the investigation phase, with the purpose of not presenting to the Court certain documents requested in relation to domestic criminal processes. In that assumption, the Tribunal considered that it corresponded to the State to send the documents required informing of the reservation and of the need, convenience, or appropriateness of maintaining the due confidentiality of the information. In those cases, the Court considered that the State’s negative to forward documents cannot result in detriment to the victims, but only in its own detriment, reason for which the Tribunal could consider as established the facts that were provable only through evidence the State refused to forward.7 10. That during the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment, the Tribunal’s duty is no longer the determination of the facts of the case and the State’s potential international responsibility, but instead only the verification of the compliance with the obligations stated in the judgment by the State responsible. For this the Court shall have the necessary information, which shall be provided by the State, the Commission, and the victims or their representatives. In this sense, the General Assembly of the OAS has reiterated that, with the purpose that the Tribunal be able to fully comply with the obligation to inform it of the compliance with its judgments, it is necessary that the State Parties to the Convention provide the information required by said Tribunal in a timely manner.8 Therefore, in order to comply with its duty to monitor compliance of the reparation measures for the violations committed in detriment of the victims, and in attention to the principle of having both parties present, in each case the Court will assess the need, convenience, or appropriateness of maintaining the confidentiality of 7 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, paras. 98 through 100. See also, mutatis mutandi, Matter of Pérez et al. (Campo Algodonero) v. Mexico, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009 (request for expansion of the alleged victims and negative to forward documentary evidence), para. 59. 8 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2408 (XXXVIII-O/08) approved in the fourth full session, held on June 3, 2008, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”