81 these judgments enforced using the corresponding channels. It is true that the existence of Act No. 838/96 (supra para. 61(123)) can help repair certain consequences of the human rights violations committed against some victims during the dictatorship. However, since the possible effects of this law do not encompass integral reparation of the violations committed, the State cannot allege that the next of kin have not attempted this mechanism so as to claim that it has fulfilled its obligation to make reparation. Consequently, the Court does not need to rule on the scope and characteristics of the civil jurisdiction or the procedure established in the said Act No. 838/96 under the responsibility of the Ombudsman’s Office. (b) Obligations derived from international law on extradition in cases of grave human rights violations 123. Although the State’s responsibility has been declared, it is necessary to take into account Paraguay’s arguments with regard to its obligation to investigate the facts, and to identify and punish those responsible. Regarding the proceedings opened in the case of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, the State indicated that “the Paraguayan procedural system d[id] not allow the trial in absentia [of the accused, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda and Sabino Augusto Montanaro, so that] taking into account [also] the death of two of the accused in the case, it is at a standstill.” In relation to the criminal proceedings in the case of the brothers Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, the State indicated that “the preliminary proceedings continue open with regard to the accused, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda, Sabino Augusto Montanaro and Eusebio Torres; [that] an extradition request is being processed before the Brazilian courts […] [in the case of Mr. Stroessner and that Mr.] Montanaro […] has been granted asylum in Honduras, a country with which Paraguay has not signed an extradition treaty.” 124. In the case of Dr. Agustín Goiburú Giménez, even though, in 1989, initial attempts were made by the court in charge of the investigation, through letters rogatory sent via the Paraguayan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the accused to make “informative statements” before Brazilian and Honduran judicial authorities, these measures never produced any concrete results (supra paras. 61(65) to 61(69)). Following the repeated requests of the complainant, in 1997, 1998 and 1999, the Court requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide information on the results of the letters rogatory, but there is no evidence of any result in this respect. In 1999, the Fourth Criminal Court of First Instance advised the Head of the National Police Headquarters in Asunción that it had decided to order the preventive detention of Sabino Augusto Montanaro, which gave rise to subsequent communications with INTERPOL, but without any concrete results. Following several petitions by the complainant, Elva Benítez de Goiburú, and the fact that, in May 2000, the Third Criminal Tribunal (de Liquidación y Sentencia) had declared “that the defendants were in contempt of court and willfully disobedient of court orders,” in December 2000 that court “ordered the preventive detention for the purpose of extradition” of the accused; in other words, 11 years after the proceedings had commenced. Despite this order, there is no evidence in the documentation provided to the Court that the extradition of Alfredo Stroessner or Sabino Augusto Montanaro was effectively requested in the context of these criminal proceedings. With regard to Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda, the Court cannot disregard the well-known fact that he died on August 16, 2006, in Brasilia, Brazil, the country where he resided following the end of the dictatorship in Paraguay. Regarding Sabino Augusto Montanaro, even though the State had informed the Court that “he had been granted asylum in Honduras, a country with which Paraguay has not signed an extradition treaty,” and