77 that, in the case file, there is no specific protection measure granted to protect said persons. In that respect, the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia did not fulfill this obligation. 7.1.4. Legal qualification 273. The Commission observes that both criminal proceedings were filed for the crime of kidnapping. Likewise, regarding the criminal proceedings No. 233, the crime of homicide was added because of the death of Javier Giraldo Giraldo. 274. Regarding the effectiveness of the investigation in the cases of forced disappearance, the Court has pointed out that the States must establish an adequate regulatory framework to conduct it. In the words of the Court, this entails, first of all, establishing the forced disappearance of persons as an autonomous crime in their domestic legislation “because criminal prosecution is an adequate instrument to prevent future human rights violations.”381 It also indicated that classification of this offense must be in line with the minimum elements set forth in specific international instruments, both universal and inter-American, for the protection of persons against forced disappearances.382 275. In the present case, although forced disappearance has been classified as a crime in domestic law, it has not been used as such in domestic investigations despite the request of the legal representative of the victims’ relatives. Bearing in mind that one of the elements that differentiates kidnapping from the forced disappearance of persons is precisely the direct participation or acquiescence of state authorities, the Commission deems that the inadequate qualification of the events has become yet another factor which, as indicated above (see supra paras. 247-268), has hindered investigation of the ties between the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio and law enforcement entities and, as result, determination of all levels of responsibility. 7.1.5. Special jurisdiction of the Justice and Peace Law 276. The IACHR observes that, after requesting the suspension of ordinary court proceedings, the leader of the Self-Defense Forces Magdalena Medio, Ramón Isaza, filed proceedings in line with Law No. 975, known as the Justice and Peace Law. According to the Justice and Peace Law, persons demobilized from guerrilla or self-defense groups who meet the requirements set forth in said law may be convicted for five to eight years imprisonment for their crimes.383 381 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paragraph 145; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paragraphs 96 and 97; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraphs 188-189; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paragraph 66. 382 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paragraph 96 and 97; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraph 188-189, and Case of Goiburú and others v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paragraph 92. 383 Law 975 of 2005. Official Gazette No. 45.980 of July 25, 2005. Article 29.