165 participants in the judicial process, as well as former and current inhabitants of Mapiripán. 300. According to what the State reported, the Special Committee to further the investigation of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law has chosen the case of the Mapiripán Massacre to accelerate elucidation of the facts and punishment of those responsible (supra para. 293.m)). The Court deems that this may contribute to compliance with said obligations, together with the appointment of a special Public Prosecutor, within the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, exclusively in charge of the investigation and furthering of the ongoing criminal proceeding. * * * 301. The Court notes that on June 22, 2005 the Congress of the Republic of Colombia enacted Law 975, called “Ley de Justicia y Paz”, ���which issues provisions for the reinsertion of members of organized armed groups outside the law, to effectively contribute to the attainment of national peace, and issues other provisions for humanitarian agreements,” signed by the President of the Republic on July 25 of that same year. In this regard, the representatives filed a brief after their final written pleadings (supra para. 44), in which they pointed out that enactment of this Law constitutes a supervening fact in the instant case, since it is an additional obstacle to establishment of the truth, attainment of justice and reparations for the victims in this case, as they are not ensured the possibility of fully participating in the criminal proceeding and of receiving comprehensive reparations. Based on the above, they asked the Court to “examine the normative framework of demobilization of the paramilitary as a whole, and order that domestic legislation and the demobilization program be adjusted to international standards regarding the rights of the victims”. 302. In this regard, the Commission deemed that the provisions of the Ley de Justicia y Paz do not establish incentives for those who are demobilized to extensively confess the truth regarding their responsibility, in exchange for the judicial benefits they will receive; that this massacre involved multiple perpetrators, linked to paramilitary blocks that have entered the demobilization process and, therefore, they will be beneficiaries of application of the “Justice and Peace” Law, as will agents of the State whose collaboration by action or omission is yet to be established, and that the State has the obligation to remove all factual and legal obstacles that might hinder extensive judicial elucidation of the violations of the American Convention committed in this case, prosecution of those responsible, and due reparations to the victims. 303. The State, in turn, pointed out that enactment of Law 975 de 2005 does not constitute a supervening fact under the terms of Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, as it has not been applied to the specific case, for which reason it is not possible to establish and identify the alleged violations that said application generates regarding the rights of the victims. After analyzing the scope of the Law, the State pointed out that it is not appropriate for the Court to rule on whether said Law is in accordance with the international obligations of the State regarding the American Convention in the instant case.