## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Date** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Latitude** \\ **(Degrees)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Longitude** \\ **(Degrees)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Depth (km)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Magnitude** \\ **(Mw)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Distance (km)** \\ \hline P1 & 25 November 2014 & 6.82 & \(-\)73.166 & 150 & 5.3 & 21 \\ P2 & 14 December 2014 & 5.449 & \(-\)73.748 & 151.1 & 5 & 182 \\ P3 & 10 March 2015 & 6.825 & \(-\)73.134 & 157.7 & 6.4 & 18 \\ P4 & 22 March 2015 & 6.804 & \(-\)73.147 & 154.6 & 5 & 20 \\ P5 & 14 October 2015 & 7.742 & \(-\)73.329 & 117.6 & 5.5 & 68 \\ P6 & 22 September 2016 & 6.83 & \(-\)72.972 & 163.1 & 5 & 11 \\ P7 & 4 September 2017 & 6.827 & \(-\)73.145 & 156 & 5 & 18 \\ P8 & 1 October 2017 & 7.657 & \(-\)73.261 & 137.7 & 5.7 & 57 \\ P9 & 8 January 2018 & 6.839 & \(-\)73.139 & 154.7 & 5.5 & 17 \\ P10 & 31 May 2018 & 6.814 & \(-\)73.143 & 148.99 & 5.5 & 19 \\ P11 & 7 August 2018 & 6.87 & \(-\)73.109 & 150.02 & 5.6 & 13 \\ P12 & 24 January 2019 & 6.829 & \(-\)73.179 & 151.51 & 5.3 & 22 \\ P13 & 22 September 2019 & 6.823 & \(-\)73.12 & 152.77 & 5.2 & 17 \\ P14 & 28 March 2020 & 6.809 & \(-\)73.161 & 148.6 & 5.1 & 21 \\ P15 & 9 July 2020 & 6.813 & \(-\)73.209 & 150.18 & 5.2 & 25 \\ P16 & 16 December 2020 & 6.805 & \(-\)73.213 & 147.46 & 5 & 26 \\ P17 & 12 October 2021 & 6.818 & \(-\)73.205 & 158.25 & 5 & 25 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Inventory of seismic events present for the study region obtained from the SGC [62], with depth selection parameters \(\geq\)50 km, magnitude \(\geq\)5 Mw and radius of 200 km. Events P5, P9, P11 and P14 are observed in both satellite trajectories due to the type of motion (focal mechanism), and events P1, P2, P3 and P4, which present an inverted phase in Figure 6a,b, display a condition also associated with the focal mechanism and the way of observing the satellite trajectory. From the present analysis, it is observed that the seismic events are not concordant with what was described by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [7] in relation to the magnitude and depth; however, if we take into account what has been observed from the behavior of the graph (Figure 6), in addition to a degree of magnitude that is greater than 5 Mw, the seismic productivity, the proximity of the events, the tectonic environment and the type of rock (which would have a better response in the propagation of the energy released by the seismic event), a high correspondence between the degrees of surface deformation and the deep seismic events present in the study region is obtained. However, unlike surface events, these would generate subtle changes in the surface deformation that would occur within a range of \(\pm\)20 mm (data calculated from the values of the interferograms only where they correlate with the deep events). On the other hand, performing the analysis of the focal mechanisms generated from the seismic record of each event, this clear correspondence of the shape of the graph in its subsidence and uplift phases is observed, which, in turn, is also influenced by the field of view of the satellite trajectory. The focal mechanism shows the geometry and movement of the fault described from the proposed solution to determine a behavior of compression (reverse fault), expansion (normal fault), transformation (strike slip fault) or combined (oblique fault). In this context, punctually, for the trajectory of LOS-ascending in positive phase (uplift), the events P1, P7, P13, P17, S8 and S17 (oblique) are concordant with the degree of deformation on the surface, and the events P3 (normal), P9, P11 and S5 (strike slip) and P4, P5, P14, P15, P16, S1, S2, S7, S9, S13, S15 and S16 (oblique) agree with the negative phase (subsidence) (Figure 7).