118 i) results of the investigation under regular venue were insufficient: of more than two hundred persons involved in committing the acts in the case, only a minimal part of the masterminds and direct perpetrators of the massacre have been included in the investigation: only 15 have been formally included in the investigation; only 8 were tried; only seven have been convicted; only 5 were under detention, 2 of whom benefited from preclusion of the investigation and 3 were released. Several arrest warrants have not been carried out despite the fact that they are frequently in contact with the press and, sometimes, with public officials. Even though arrest warrants have been issued, only 6 out of the 14 persons, whether convicted by trial courts or included in the investigation, are deprived of their liberty in a definitive or preventive manner. The investigation to include the rest of the direct perpetrators of the facts remains open almost eight years after the massacre, which is still in the preliminary investigation phase with regard to most of the participants. All of this has led to impunity; j) the State has the duty to seriously investigate and punish human rights violations, to prosecute those responsible and to avoid impunity. Said investigation must include full identification of all the victims. The State has been incapable of gathering the essential evidence needed to identify all the victims and to establish their number, despite the existence of indicia and references on their possible identity. The State has not taken the necessary steps to recover the bodies of the alleged victims. These violations impede satisfaction of the right to truth of society as a whole; k) the next of kin have the right to an effective investigation by the authorities regarding the death of their beloved ones, to a judicial proceeding against those responsible, for them to be punished as appropriate, and to reparations for the damage suffered; l) administrative-law jurisdiction is, in itself, inadequate to try and punish those responsible and to comprehensively redress the consequences of human rights violations; m) the disciplinary proceeding against members of the Army for remiss conduct regarding defense of the population of Mapiripán does not satisfy the requirements set forth in the American Convention regarding the right to judicial protection; n) as a general rule, a criminal investigation must be conducted promptly to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence and safeguard the rights of all persons who in the context of the investigation are considered suspects. Delays in judicial actions constitute a violation of the duty of the State to elucidate the facts, to try and to punish those responsible for the grave violations committed, in accordance with the standards of reasonable term and the right to effective judicial protection, and they have impeded real exercise by the next of kin of their right to justice and their right to know the truth about what happened to the victims; o) in cases such as this, the authorities must act ex officio and further the investigation, without depositing this burden on the initiative of the next of kin, who, in the specific context of the criminal acts committed by