48 contribute to the investigation and punishment, if applicable, of all the authors. This evidence must be assessed by the pertinent domestic judicial authorities in the context of the proceedings that are open or that will be opened in order to determine the truth of what happened in the case and those responsible, particularly with regard to possible connections or connivance between State agents and paramilitary groups in the planning and execution of the violations that are the subject of this case. 163. In addition, the Court observes that, as indicated by the State as a supervening fact, on February 21, 2008, during a hearing before a prosecutor of the Justice and Peace Unit, a demobilized member of the paramilitary forces acknowledged his participation in the death of Mr. Valle Jaramillo, presumably on the orders of the paramilitary leader Carlos Castaño Gil. This must be verified by the Prosecutor General’s Office, but, in any case, would appear to corroborate that the violations that are the subject of this case remain unpunished. 164. Furthermore, the Court observes, as it has on other occasions, that the application of the Justice and Peace Law is currently at an initial stage of procedural activities relating to receiving the statements (versiones libres) of some of the individuals who have demobilized, such as those indicated in the previous paragraphs. Subsequently, the National Justice and Peace Prosecutors Unit and the Superior Courts of the Judicial District must, inter alia, adopt the corresponding decisions.121 Thus, although the information obtained under the Justice and Peace Law may contribute to obtaining justice and reparation in this case, it should be recalled that the time required to bring the pending criminal proceedings to final judgment, as well as those under the Justice and Peace Law, with their different stages, would have to be added to the time that has elapsed since the facts. 165. Based on the above, the Court finds that even though criminal investigations have been conducted, resulting in the conviction of several private individuals, partial impunity subsists in this case, as the State has acknowledged, to the extent that the whole truth of the facts and all those responsible have not been determined. In addition, the impunity in this case is reflected by the trial and conviction in absentia of members of paramilitary groups, who have benefited from the ineffectiveness of the punishment, because the warrants for their arrest have not been executed. B) Disciplinary proceedings 166. In addition to the criminal proceedings described above, according to the State’s acknowledgement of the facts, on December 5, 2001, the Delegated Disciplinary Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights opened file No. 008-65478/01 in order to investigate the alleged responsibility of public officials in the facts of the instant case. However, the file was archived at the preliminary stage of investigations by a judicial decision of June 13, 2002, owing to lack of sufficient evidence to charge any public servant. The Court also notes that disciplinary proceedings were conducted against two judicial officials of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit before the Jurisdictional Disciplinary Chamber of the Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Antioquia for alleged irregularities in the exercise of their functions. In this regard, the Court observes that, although such disciplinary proceedings are no substitute for the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of human rights violations, because they tend to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials rather than trying to clarify the facts and establish the 121 Cf. Articles 16 to 28 of Law 975 of 2005 of July 25, 2005.