47 159. Even so, in accordance with the State’s acknowledgement of the facts and with the decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office of May 21, 1999,118 this Court emphasizes that more than two people, that is, at least two men and a woman, took part in the facts of the case. Consequently, and in accordance with the State’s partial acquiescence, the Court observes that, even though the criminal proceedings in which two individuals were convicted as authors of the facts were conducted within a reasonable time, there has been an unjustified judicial delay in the investigations into other possible authors of the facts of the case. Indeed, as indicated above, the State “accept[ed] that the criminal and disciplinary proceedings carried out to date had not complied fully with [its duty to provide] reparation [in the form of] justice and truth for the victims, their next of kin, and society, since all those responsible for the facts had not been encompassed by the investigations and since these investigations had not been conducted within a reasonable time and, in brief, had not complied effectively with their purpose.” 160. According to the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State, not all the investigations that were opened have concluded. In an investigation by the Human Rights Unit, preventive detention has been ordered for two members of a paramilitary group who have been convicted for other acts and who are serving their prison sentences. In addition, an action remains pending for review of the judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Medellín Circuit of March 15, 2001, which, inter alia, acquitted several civilians charged in the instant case (supra paras. 149 and 150)). Also, as the State has indicated, measures have been taken before the Antioquia Sectional Council of the Judiciary in order to establish whether there are grounds for disciplining the judicial officials who processed the criminal action (infra para. 166). 161. Even taking into account that these proceedings are still open, the case file before the Court does not show that an active investigation is underway concerning the possibility that, in addition to private individuals, State agents may also have played a part in the planning or execution of the facts that are the subject of this case. Nevertheless, the Court observes that, during the public hearing, Sandra Jeannette Castro Ospina, Head of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office, when referring to the criminal investigations opened to clarify the facts of the case, stated that there was a “community of evidence” between the present case and the facts of the Ituango Massacres case, in which this Court found that the acquiescence and collaboration of members of the Army with paramilitary groups had been proved; and that this “community of evidence” could “help reactivate [the] investigation into the murder of Jesús María Valle.”119 Moreover, in the National Justice and Peace Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office, measures have been taken under Law 975 of 2005, also known as the “Justice and Peace Law,”120 which would allow it to obtain information on the possible participation in the facts of State agents or other private individuals. 162. In this regard, as is clear from the body of evidence in this case and as indicated by the State, probative elements have emerged from the statements (versiones libres) made in these proceedings by Salvatore Mancuso and Isaías Montes Hernández, alias “Junior,” wellknown leaders of paramilitary groups in Colombia, that could help clarify the facts and 118 Decision of May 21 1999, of the Delegate Prosecutor before the Regional Judges of Medellín, of the Regional Directorate of Prosecutors’ Offices, of the Office of the Prosecutor General (file of attachments to the application, appendices 1 and 2, folios 50 to 163). 119 120 Statement made by the deponent providing information, Sandra Jeannette Castro Ospina, supra note 107. Cf. Law 975 of 2005 of July 25, 2005, “enacting provisions for the reincorporation of members of unlawful organized armed groups who make an effective contribution to national peace, and ordering other provisions for humanitarian agreements.” Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, para. 180.