14 terms of the purpose and direction of the investigation. It is essential, in this type of investigation, to ensure permanent and timely communication and information between state authorities and the representatives of the victims. 32. That, as has been established in the Judgment, it is necessary to remember that the instant case deals with extra-legal executions and forced disappearances of people, in which the State has the duty to initiate a prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation ex officio. Certainly, during the investigation and judicial proceedings, the victims of human rights violations or their next-of-kin, must have ample opportunity to take part and be heard, both in the elucidation of the facts as well as and in the quest for fair compensation. Nevertheless, the effective search for the truth falls upon the State and does not depend on the procedural initiative of the victim or next-of-kin or on the submission of evidentiary elements. * * * 33. That in relation to the appointment of a special public prosecutor to investigate into the case, the representatives pointed out that the State has not complied with the commitment to appoint a special prosecutor to be in charge of the investigation of the instant case and they considered that the Attorney General's Office should receive more support by naming an investigation bureau that would remove some of the workload, in order to make some progress, within a reasonable time. 34. That the State, in addition, mentioned that it understood that the appointment of an exclusive public prosecutor was not a specific obligation, but a simple recommendation from the Court. The State considers that, at present, it is impossible and inconvenient to appoint an exclusive prosecutor to the case, inasmuch as there are more than 100 prosecutors working at the Human Rights Unit, who are in charge of more than 4800 active proceedings; therefore, such appointment would imply reassigning the workload among other prosecutors. Besides, it considers that making such appointment, in a hallmark case, could turn into a negative example for the other cases of alleged massive human rights violations the Attorney General’s Office is in charge of. 35. That the Commission considered that such appointment would contribute to make a material progress in the compliance with the pending judicial obligations. 36. That the Court deemed in the Judgment that the appointment of a special public prosecutor, within the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, who would be exclusively in charge of the investigation and the furthering of the ongoing criminal proceeding, would contribute to the compliance with the obligation to investigate. Nevertheless, such appointment does not constitute the only way to meet such objectives and therefore, it falls upon the State the duty to order the necessary measures to guarantee some progress in the investigation, as fast and effectively as possible. * * * 37. That, the representatives expressed their concern about the extradition to the United States of America of 13 paramilitary officers, decided on May 14, 2008 by the President of the Republic, which includes the extradition of the former highest chief of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, for the crime of drug trafficking, which jeopardizes the criminal investigations conducted against him for this case and constitutes a flagrant obstruction of justice. They noted that, even though both governments announced their intention to implement mechanisms of judicial