contribute to the truth, this has been fragmentary and, in general, incomplete”; (i) the fact that the prosecution has not diligently gathered probative elements other than what has been said by the candidates in the voluntary confession proceedings in order to establish the veracity of their statements and, in general, (j) the events of this case have not been investigated in an effective, extensive and systematic manner. 389. The Court reiterates the considerations made in section B.1.a) above concerning the aspects related to: the lack of security for those who took part in the proceedings; the victims’ lack of participation in the proceedings, and the failure to implicate the private companies in the investigations into the facts of the case. Regarding the logical lines of investigation, the evidence provided reveals that the Prosecutor General’s Office has examined the facts of the case in the context of the patterns of action of the paramilitaries who were operating in the region639 and that, as has been shown in this case, they operated with the collaboration and acquiescence of the Armed Forces. 390. Regarding the extradition of paramilitaries to the United States of America, in the case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia640 and in the order on compliance with judgment in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia,641 the Court has considered that “the application of devices such as extradition should not serve as a mechanism to encourage, obtain or ensure impunity. Consequently, in decisions relating to the application of these procedural devices to an individual, the State authorities must give prevalence to considering an accusation for gross human rights violations.” This has also been considered by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice in relation to a request to extradite a paramilitary.642 391. Despite the foregoing, the representatives have not explained how, in this specific case, or for what reasons, the extradition of paramilitaries had an impact on the victims’ right to truth and to justice. To the contrary, the evidence provided by the parties reveals that the Prosecutor General, and also the Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit reached conclusions on the judicial truth of the facts of the case that, incidentally, are essentially in keeping with what the representatives have alleged in their briefs. This acquires greater relevance when it is considered that the judgment delivered by the Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit convicted retired General Rito Alejo del Río Rojas, precisely taking into account, among other evidence and indications, the voluntary confessions of the paramilitaries demobilized under the Justice and Peace procedure. In other words, no other evidence has been provided that would allow the Court to conclude that, in this case, the extradition of demobilized paramilitaries had affected the right to procedural truth, or prevented the courts from taking judicial decisions in keeping with the allegations of the representatives in the instant case. 392. Regarding the fact that proceedings were not opened in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, the Court notes that no arguments or evidence was provided that would allow it to conclude that the fact that actions were taken in the jurisdiction of the Justice and Peace system and not under the ordinary system of justice had necessarily led to an impairment of 639 Cf. 48th Delegate Prosecutor before the Justice and Peace Court, Dossier on the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc. Genesis. Context immediately before it was planned (evidence file, folios 44465 to 44536), structures described by Fredy Rendón in voluntary confession made on November 26, 2009 (evidence file, folios 45250 to 45443), Ideology of the organization (evidence file, folios 45238 to 45248, and 45459 to 45489), Chain of command (evidence file, folios 45490 to 45512), and Demobilization proceedings (evidence file, folios 45513 to 45526). 640 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 166. 641 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, considering paragraph 40. 642 In proceedings 30451, the Criminal Cassation Chamber issued a negative opinion on the request for extradition of an individual who was a candidate for the benefits establshed in the Justie and Peace Act, based on the following argments: (i) it violated the spirit of Law 975 of 2005; (ii) it ignored the rights of the victims; (iii) it disrupted the functioning of the administration of Colombian justice, and (iv) the severity of the crimes committed for which the individual’s extradition was requested was less than the crimes that he was accused of in Colombia. Cited in the Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 166. 125