15 against Major General (ret.) Alfonso Vacca Perilla was transferred to the military jurisdiction in May 1997, and the criminal proceeding with regard to the other individuals who were accused was continued by the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General. The proceeding in the military court terminated with Mayor General Vacca Perilla’s acquittal in 1998, and the criminal proceeding in the civil courts ended with the declaration of the preclusion of the criminal investigation. 9. That the Court, as determined in its constant case law, considers that it is inadmissible to invoke provisions of domestic law to try and prevent the investigation Any and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations.2 interpretation to the contrary would deny the effet util of the provisions of the American Convention with respect to the domestic law of the States Parties and would deprive the international proceeding of one of its principal functions, because, instead of being conducive to justice, it would foster the impunity of those responsible for such violations.3 10. The Court also considers that the general obligations embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention require the States Parties to adopt promptly all measures to ensure that no one is deprived of the right to judicial protection,4 embodied in Article 25 of the American Convention. 11. That judgment C-004 of 2003 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia (supra fifty-first having seen paragraph) decides that it is admissible to file an action for judicial review “against the preclusion of the investigation, the termination of the proceeding, and an acquittal in proceedings concerning human rights violations […], provided that […] a decision of an international body that monitors and controls human rights, formally accepted by” Colombia has declared the State responsible for the human rights violations. The Court considers that it is extremely important that Colombia adopt all necessary measures to clarify the facts by carrying out judicial proceedings that lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The next of kin of the victim should have full access and capacity to intervene at all stages and in all instances of these investigations, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention.5 12. In accordance with the foregoing, domestic law, such as the procedural investigation, in order to prevent access to the decisions of this Court concerning the Colombia cannot invoke provisions of figure of preclusion of the criminal justice and to obstruct compliance with investigation and punishment of those 2 Cf. Bulacio case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C. No. 100 paras. 116 and 117; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002, Series C. No. Series C No. 92. para. 106; and Barrios Altos case, Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75 para. 41. 3 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, sixth considering paragraph; and Las Palmeras case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 69. 4 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 2, para. 116; and Caso Barrios Altos, Judgment on merits, supra note 2, para. 43. 5 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 2, para. 121.