denunciations “to alert society to the links between paramilitarism and some State agents placed his life, and personal liberty and integrity in grave danger.”8 16. Meanwhile, the State agreed “[t]o take all measures to continue conducting an impartial and exhaustive investigation in order to prosecute and punish all the perpetrators and masterminds.”9 On this point, the judgment stated that “the obligation to investigate is one of means, rather than results, and these must be assumed by the State as its legal obligation and not as a mere formality, preordained to be fruitless.”10 Taking into account the specific events that put the life of Jesus Maria Valle Jaramillo at grave risk, the Court observes the lack of information on actions aimed at identifying, prosecuting and eventually punishing all the masterminds and perpetrators who may be linked to the facts of the case. In particular, it notes the absence of proceedings and investigations to verify the involvement of State agents and members of law enforcement personnel in the death of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo. An effective investigation of the facts must include the identification of all those involved; otherwise it violates the right to the truth of the victims and their families. As indicated in the judgment, “[the] right to the truth requires the procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the judicial determination of patterns of joint action and of all those who, in different ways, participated in these violations and the corresponding responsibilities.”11 17. In this regard, the Court assesses positively the efforts made by the State, through the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Technical Investigation Unit (CTI), to gather information from the institutions responsible for the Justice and Peace mechanism. In this regard, it is essential to interrelate and cross-check the information from the investigations opened into the execution of Mr. Valle Jaramillo with the information from the investigations conducted in connection with the massacres of El Aro and La Granja, as well as to obtain any relevant information that may emerge from the procedures carried out under the Justice and Peace Law. Thus, the Court stressed the need for the different State institutions to collaborate in order to remove any obstacle that prevents the proper investigation of the facts, and to obtain information on the possible involvement of State agents or other private individuals in the planning or execution of the facts. 18. As for the extradition of the paramilitary leaders to the United States of America and the absence of agreements between Colombia and that country which would permit appropriate cooperation regarding this matter, the consistent case law of this Court should be recalled which establishes that no law or provision of domestic law may prevent a State from complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations.12 A State may not directly or indirectly provide protection to those prosecuted for crimes involving serious human rights 8 Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 95. 9 Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 227(a). 10 Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 100. 11 Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 102. 12 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 168; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 105; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 166; Case of the “Dos Erres Massacre” v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 129. 7