66 determination of proceedings.252 individual or State responsibilities through the judicial 233. Based on the foregoing, the State must use the necessary means, in conformity with its domestic legislation, to effectively direct the investigations so as to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the crimes committed in Las Dos Erres, and remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, which maintain the case in impunity. Specifically, the State must ensure that the investigation covers the following criteria: a) considering the gravity of the facts, the State may not apply amnesty laws nor argue prescription, non-retroactivity of the criminal law, former adjudication, the non bis in idem principle (supra para. 129), or any other similar means of discharging from liability, to excuse itself from this obligation.253 Consequently, the State must continue the criminal proceeding without delay; b) effectively investigate all facts of the massacre, taking into account the systematic pattern of human rights violations existing at the time that the facts of the instant case took place, including, apart from the murder of the inhabitants of the community, other possible serious infringements to humane treatment, particularly, the alleged acts of torture, in light of the differentiated impacts of the alleged violence against girls and women.254 The State must also eventually apply the punishments corresponding to those facts, and execute the pending arrest warrants; c) determine all alleged perpetrators and masterminds of the massacre, therefore it must conclude the criminal proceeding initiated against them, and proceed to investigate the alleged perpetrators which have not been identified yet. Due diligence in the investigation implies that all state authorities are obligated to collaborate in gathering evidence, therefore they should provide all information required and abstain from acts that imply an obstruction to the investigation process (supra para. 144); d) initiate disciplinary, administrative, or criminal actions, in conformity with the domestic legislation, against the State authorities who may have thwarted or prevented an adequate investigation of the facts, as well as those responsible for the different procedural irregularities and facts of harassment that have contributed to extending the impunity of the massacre (supra párr. 145); e) adopt the measures necessary for the appeal for legal protection to be used effectively, in conformity with the principles of concentration, promptness, of the presence of both parties, motivation of a judgment, and 252 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile, supra note 161, para. 150; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador, supra note 109, para. 128, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 180. 253 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra note 133, para. 41 to 44; Case of Ticona Estrada et al v. Bolivia, supra note 135, para. 147, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 182. 254 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, in its General Recommendation No. 19 “Violence against women,” has established that within the framework of armed conflicts States must adopt protective and punitive measures; additionally, it recommended for the States to ensure that the laws against attacks respect the integrity and dignity of all women, and provide protection to the victims; as well as to perform an investigation of the causes and effects of violence and the effectiveness of the response measures; and that they enshrine efficient procedures for reparations, including compensation.