54 informed that “at the site of the events, there is an injured person who is still alive.” This grave omission is closely related to what the surviving victim, Arturo Salgado, stated before the Court when he expressed his surprise that no member of the Army or the Police came to help him after the massacre, even though the military battalions were only 20 to 40 minutes from the site of the massacre, and news of the massacre started to circulate at approximately 1 p.m. It was the newspaper reporters who helped him at around 5 p.m.172 175. Regarding the obstacles to the administration of justice related to the capture of those suspected of responsibility for the massacre, the Court has stated that the delay in executing issued arrest warrants contributes to the repetition of acts of violence and intimidation against witnesses and prosecutors connected to the determination of the truth of the events,173 particularly when it is demonstrated that the survivors and several of the next of kin and witnesses were harassed and threatened, and that some even had to leave the country. * * * Unjustified delays in conducting procedural activities 176. There have also been unjustified delays in conducting procedural activities during the judicial proceedings. The following are among the most important: (a) For six years the investigations were at a standstill. The State indicated that there were “some delays” given that “the case was in general proceedings before the Public Order Tribunal [Tribunal de Orden Público] and the Supreme Court of Justice [Corte Suprema de Justicia] from February 1990 to February 1992.”174 It should be noted that in 1990, the appeals court ordered that the investigation be continued with regard to individuals who were “mentioned and accused but ignored during the preliminary proceedings.”175 However, this order was only implemented when the National Human Rights Unit of the Attorney General’s Office took over the case for the first time in 1996;176 (b) Remedying the partial nullification of the proceedings with regard to seven persons took 15 years.177 This nullification was decreed in 1990 by the court that heard the the morning on the following day, “according to express orders of […] General VACCA PERILLA, and if they went to the site it would be on their own account and at their own risk. Thus, we took the risk in order to arrive at the site.” 172 Cf. testimonial statement by Arturo Salgado Garzón during the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on January 31 and February 1, 2007. 173 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 322. 174 Cf. report of August 25, 2006, issued by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 1, page 4578). 175 Cf. judgment of November 14, 1990, issued by the Superior Tribunal of Public Order (record of evidences to the application, volume I, evidence A32, page 525). 176 The National Human Rights Unit “undertook” the case on July 28, 1996 and produced its first order related to the case in November of 1996. Cf. report of August 25, 2006, issued by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 1, page 4578). 177 Norberto de Jesús Martínez Sierra, Rafael Pombo, Anselmo Martínez, Robinson Fontecha, Wilson Cardona Camacho, Oscar Moreno Rivera and Jesús Antonio Cárdenas.