11 consequences, but to verify only the compliance with the obligations stipulated in the ruling by the responsible State. Therefore, the Court needs to have the necessary information, which must be provided by the State, the Commission and the victims or their representatives. Furthermore, the General Assembly to the OAS repeated that, in order for the Tribunal to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, the States Parties to the Convention need to provide, in time fashion, the information requested by the Court. 6. In this way, for the sake of complying with its role in monitoring compliance with the measures of reparation regarding the violations committed to the detriment of the victims and in the presence of both parties to an action, the Court shall assess, in each case, the need, convenience or relevance of maintaining the confidentiality of the information furnished in relation to its use in the order but not in relation to the parties’ access to it. 13. That in the instant case, Colombia has submitted certain information related to the investigations, which has been transmitted and learnt by the representatives and the Commission, but the State requests the Tribunal not to publish such information in the monitoring compliance orders. The Court shall take into account all the information provided and shall include in this order only the essential part of such information, in order to determine the level of compliance with this operative paragraph. As to the other allegations of the State (supra Considering clause 8), the Court has pointed out, as in previous cases, that it is not a criminal court which can analyze the criminal responsibility of individuals, 7 and therefore, the Court shall not analyze in this stage all the dimensions of the investigations and internal proceedings, but only the level of compliance with the order established in the Judgment. 14. That, the State informed that on March 6, 2008, the Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice handed down an unprecedented decision in the country regarding the appeal for review filed by the 24th Prosecutor's Office in Criminal Judicial Matters II, in relation to the criminal proceedings conducted against members of law enforcement agencies who are allegedly associated with facts of the instant case at the military criminal courts. 8 Afterwards, the State referred to proceedings as part of the investigations conducted by the Human Rights Unit, such as the gathering of statements, judicial inspections, commissions to different parts of the country and requests for justice and peace filed with prosecutors. In addition, as 6 General Assembly, Order AG/ RES 2408 (XXXVIII-O/08 adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights.” 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C Nº 4 para. 134; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 37; Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. See also, Case of Boyce et al. V. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C Nº 169, footnote 37 and case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 93. 8 In this decision, the Supreme Court decided to declare the proceedings conducted at the military criminal court to be unfounded, as to the decision to close the investigation and the order to discontinue the proceedings in favor of several people, both of the year 1997. The Supreme Court decided to remit the proceedings to the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Solicitor General's Office in order to continue with the investigations, which have been interrupted since the Solicitor General’s Office was forced to decline jurisdiction according to the decision made by the Superior Council of Judicature in 1996. The State mentioned that said judgment constitutes “an important step towards the protection of human rights in Colombia and that it complies with the decisions of the Inter-American Court.”