121 316. The negligence of the judicial authorities responsible for examining the circumstances of the massacres by the opportune collection of evidence in situ cannot be rectified by the belated probative measures taken during the investigations. The shortcomings indicated can be considered serious failures in the obligation to investigate the facts that occurred in El Aro, because they have affected the successful determination of these facts. 317. The Court has noted that the State indicated that on September 19, 2005, “various measures were ordered to ascertain the names of the members of the National Army’s Girardot Battalion.” This belated measure is one more example of the lack of diligence in the criminal investigation into the facts of this case. 318. Approximately eight years after the facts occurred, the possible role played by all those persons accused of participating in the facts of this case has not been determined. Even though around 30 people took part in this massacre, including members of a paramilitary group and of law enforcement bodies, proceedings have only been filed against three persons and, of these, only one is serving a prison sentence in relation to the events of El Aro. Regarding the facts of El Aro, where the collaboration and tolerance of members of law enforcement bodies is evident, the Court observes with concern that no proceedings have been filed against any of the latter who have been accused of participating in the event. The State has not provided evidence of any concrete measures taken to arrest the suspects or to make the convictions effective, or of the specific obstacles that it has encountered. 319. In this regard, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations (supra para. 300); the State should therefore organize its whole apparatus to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation and, owing to the time that has elapsed since the events, this obligation should be implemented within a reasonable time. 320. Even though investigations have been conducted that have resulted in the conviction of some of the accused, impunity subsists in this case, to the extent that neither the whole truth about the facts has been determined, nor all those responsible identified. Another relevant fact is that some members of the paramilitary group who have been convicted are not serving their sentences, since the arrest warrants issued against them have not been executed. 321. The Court finds that the State did not ensure prompt justice for the victims of the events of El Aro, since impunity continues for many of the participants. Therefore, the Court finds that the proceedings and procedures in relation to the events of El Aro have not been implemented respecting the right to a fair trial, within a reasonable time, and have not constituted an effective recourse to ensure the rights of access to justice, the truth about the facts, and to reparation of the alleged victims and their next of kin. * * * 322. The Court finds that the delay in the investigations, prosecution and sentencing of all those responsible, and in the execution of the arrest warrants that were issued, contributed to perpetuating the acts of violence and intimidation against witnesses and prosecutors involved in clarifying the events of La Granja and El Aro.