17 63. Moreover, according to information submitted to the Court, two people associated with the criminal investigation into the facts of this case and against whom pretrial detention was ordered (supra Considering clause 60(d)) were proposed by the National Government as beneficiaries of the benefits contemplated in Law 975 of 2005 (Justice and Peace Law) and had made spontaneous declarations. The parties have not informed the Court whether the competent authorities had made any decision determining whether such persons do or do not meet the eligibility requirements for the benefits contemplated in the aforementioned law. However, the Tribunal notes that in these spontaneous declarations, the persons had not provided information related to the case facts. 64. Furthermore, the Court refers to its Judgment on the principles, guarantees and obligations that the juridical framework on the demobilization process must observe, such as Law 975 and other laws. As the Court indicated, State agents and authorities are obligated to guarantee that national laws and their application conform to the American Convention.19 Moreover, the Court refers to that set forth in said Judgment on the concession of legal benefits to members of illegal armed groups —identified as being part of a complex structure of serious human rights violations— but said members allege that they took no part in such violations, requires the utmost due diligence on behalf of the competent authorities to verify that the beneficiary did not participate in the structure responsible for committing such crimes.20 65. Regarding the arguments presented by the parties concerning Law 1312 of 2009 and the regulation of the principle of opportunity, this Tribunal refers to that provided for in the Judgment on the case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia21. 66. The Tribunal values the information submitted by the State, inasmuch as it shows the willingness to comply with its international obligations to investigate the facts and, if applicable, punish those persons responsible for the human rights violations that were declared in the instant case. The Court deems it necessary for the State to forward updated and complete information on the criminal proceeding currently underway and those that have yet to begin before the Supreme Court of Justice, covering the observance of the criteria established by the Court regarding the appropriate manner in which to fully and effectively comply with the obligation to investigate, including the criteria mentioned in Considering Clause 62 of this Order. The State must include information related to the preliminary examination statements to be taken, the apprehension orders pending execution, the actions taken in that regard and, if that denote a complex structure of individuals involved in the planning and execution of the crime; to conduct an exhaustive investigation into the operational structure of the paramilitary groups and their linkages and relationships with State agents; including the participations of high ranking military authorities and other state agents and in particular, the possible responsibility of the commanders of the military battalions located within the area of operations of the paramilitary groups tied to the massacre; and to take into account the relationship that exists between the massacre of La Rochela and the case of the disappearance of the 19 tradesmen. Furthermore, the Tribunal indicated that the findings in such proceedings shall be publicized by the State in such a way as to enable the Colombian society to know the truth regarding the events of the instant case. Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, paras. 156 to 158, 164 and 295. 19 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 192-198. 20 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 293. 21 Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 216.f).