60 does not have the effect of res judicata in relation to future criminal investigations.” The Commission also indicated that “the Colombian judicial system has not established punishments for any of the individuals who have been demobilized or charged based on the application of the Justice and Peace Law” and that “the debate continues with regard to which of the articles rectified by the Colombian Constitutional Court’s judgment could be applied to the proceedings as a result of the principle of lenity.” In addition, the Commission indicated that “the decision about whether [some individuals accused of the facts of the Rochelacase] meet the eligibility requirements [of the Justice and Peace Law] still depends on a decision, first, of the Attorney General and then of the Justice and Peace Tribunal; they are responsible for determining whether that legal framework is applicable to this specific situation.” The Commission added that “all these discussions are taking place within the Colombian legal system and with the intervention of a variety of judicial institutions.” Consequently, the Commission “considers that, on the one hand, there is the matter of the relationship between this debate and the facts of the case and, on the other hand, it is essential that the debate on this legal framework should not take place in abstract or exclusively academic terms, but rather, that it should examine how this legal framework will be applied to a concrete and specific situation.” 188. At the public hearing, the Court requested that in their final written arguments the parties submit precise information on the current and possible future application of the normative framework for demobilization to individuals who could be tied to the “The Rochela massacre” or to the paramilitary groups that are alleged to have taken part in the massacre. In its final written arguments of March 2, 2007, the State submitted a list of individuals who are among “those who have received a pardon and subsequently applied for access to the benefits of Law 975 of 2005”; they include: Iván Roberto Duque Gaviria, Ramón María Isaza Arango, José Anselmo Martínez Bernal and Ricardo Antonio Ríos Avendaño. The Court observes that these individuals are implicated in the investigations into the Rochela Massacre (supra para. 98, footnote 74; para. 153(d), footnote 128; para. 154(b), footnotes 131 and 133; and para. 154(e), footnote 139). The Court also observes that Gilberto Silva Cortés, accused of the murder of the members of the Judicial Commission (supra para. 154(e), footnote 138), accepted the charges against him and requested that the alternative punishment established by Law 975 of 2005 be applied to him.197 The representatives stated that Gilberto Contrera Contrera and Faber Alejandro Rivera Correa are on the list submitted by the State and that these individuals are included in an order for production of evidence [auto de pruebas] issued by the prosecutor in relation to the full identification and location of 103 persons allegedly involved in the Rochela Massacre.198 189. On March 26, 2007, the State submitted a report of the National Prosecutor’s Unit for Justice and Peace. The State indicated that the report includes “the names of the individuals that the representatives mention as being involved in the events of the present case, and who are being processed under norms of Law 975.” In this report it indicated that the Law 975 procedure “begins once the National Government […] sends the Attorney General’s Office the list of those who have applied for the procedure and benefits” of this Law. In this regard, as stated by the Prosecutors’ Unit, “the mere declaration of the demobilized individuals is not sufficient to initiate the respective procedure.” Accordingly, the Unit reported that “from the list submitted by the “Department of [International Relations of the Office of the Attorney General]” the names of the following people “have been put forward”: 197 Cf. record of the public hearing of December 1, 2006 before the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bucaramanga (evidence 1 of the representatives’ written closing arguments, record of the merits, possible reparations and costs, volume V, pages 1587 and 1588). 198 Cf. Articles 16 and 28 of Law 975 of 2005 of July 25, 2005.