7 18. That, according to the representatives, Act 975 (Justice and Peace Act) does not entitle the victims’ legal representatives to interrogate the people subjected to such act or to request complete copies of the preliminary interviews or produce evidence in the proceeding. Moreover, they indicated that the extradition to the United States of America of 14 paramilitary chiefs have prevented the victims from having access to the proceedings and requiring a complete confession of the facts. 19. As to Act 975, the Court recalls what it has held in previous cases in that respect, in the sense that “officers and state authorities are bound to respect the provisions in force within the domestic legal system and guarantee that is application is in line with the American Convention.”12 Furthermore, the Tribunal recalls what it has pointed out in its usual practice, as well as in the Judgment, in the sense that no law or provision of domestic legislation can prevent a State from complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for serious human rights violations.13 In addition, even though in other cases, this Tribunal has acknowledged the relevance of the legal precept of extradition as an important instrument for the criminal prosecution of cases involving serious human rights violations,14 said precept cannot be held as a means to favor, seek or ensure impunity in said cases. 20. That the Tribunal considers it is essential for the State to submit updated, detailed and complete information on the measures adopted and the progress made in the corresponding proceedings in order to, within a reasonable term, identify, prosecute and punish, if applicable, the responsible. Likewise, the State must present information regarding the access of the victims and their next-of-kin to said proceedings. The State must report, also, on the actions taken to protect, where applicable, those people linked to the proceedings conducted in order to do justice for the massacres of El Aro and La Granja. * * * 21. That as to the obligation of the State to provide, free of charge, and through the national health services, the appropriate treatment required by the next-of- kin of the victims executed in this case, the State informed that it is making the necessary arrangements to carry out “the screening tests of the beneficiaries through a private entity, in compliance with what has been agreed upon with the petitioners in the meeting of June 12, 2007". After the diagnosis stage, it falls upon the State to provide the treatment required. To that end, the State pointed out that in December 2007, an agreement was entered into with the United States Development Program (UNDP) in order to locate and identify the victims' next-of-kin, make the assessment and the corresponding medical and psychological diagnosis by means of processes of psychosocial intervention and provide recommendations regarding the treatment required. In the month of October 2008, the Corporación Vinculos, a private entity specialized in treating victims of human rights violations, was hired to make the diagnosis of the victims' next-of-kin. Hence, the State informed that "it was waiting to have, by the end of December [2008] the first diagnosis 12 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C N° 154, para. 124; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C N° 186, para. 180; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, Considering Clause 63. 13 14 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 402. Cf. Case of Goiburú el al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006, Serie C No. 153, paras. 130-132; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C N. 162, paras. 159-160.