122 The case file shows that witnesses, lawyers and prosecutors have had to abandon the zone or the country for safety reasons (supra para. 125(95)). 323. In this case, the flaws in the criminal investigation have contributed to the impunity of most of those responsible for the violations perpetrated. These shortcomings have resulted in the subsequent lack of effectiveness of the ongoing criminal proceedings concerning the facts of the massacres, in which at least 20 members of a paramilitary group in La Granja and 30 in El Aro participated directly, with the collaboration, acquiescence and tolerance of members of the Colombian Armed Forces and Police. 324. The Court must recall, as it has in other cases against Colombia,248 that the facts that are the object of this judgment form part of a situation in which a high level of impunity prevails for criminal acts perpetrated by members of paramilitary groups with the acquiescence and tolerance of member of the law enforcement bodies. The Judiciary has failed to provide an adequate response to these illegal actions of such groups in keeping with the State’s international commitments, and this leads to the establishment of fertile ground for these groups, operating outside the law, to continue perpetrating acts such as those of the instant case. 325. In summary, the partial impunity and lack of effectiveness of the criminal proceedings in this case are reflected in two aspects: first, most of those responsible have not been investigated or have not been identified or processed – bearing in mind that the State has acknowledged its participation in the massacres and that the Court has established its responsibility, because they could not have been perpetrated without the knowledge, tolerance and acquiescence of the Colombian Army in the zones where the events occurred. Second, most of those who have been sentenced to imprisonment have not been arrested. b) Disciplinary procedures 326. The Court will now refer to findings applicable in both cases in relation to the proceedings opened in the disciplinary jurisdiction and then examine the investigations into the events of La Granja and El Aro conducted in that jurisdiction. 327. Even though the next of kin of the alleged victims do not have access to this instance, the Court considers that decisions issued by the disciplinary jurisdiction are important, in view of the symbolic value of the message of censure that this sanction can convey within the public security forces.249 Nevertheless, given the nature of the jurisdiction, the purpose of these investigations is restricted to determining individual responsibilities of a disciplinary nature for the acts committed by members of the State security forces. However, in view of the scale of the facts in this case, it is reasonable to presume that many public servants and officials in the region, as well as other members of the Armed Forces, who were involved in the events and whose function it was to guarantee the safety of the civilian population owing to their special status as police and military authorities in the region, were not examined by the disciplinary body. 248 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 149; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 235; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 222, para. 257. 249 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 203; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. para. 215.