78 277. In that respect, they must cooperate with the judiciary in securing the full effectiveness of the victims' rights to the truth, justice, reparations and non-repetition.384 The Commission shall rule on two aspects involving application of the Justice and Peace Law in the present case. 278. First of all, the Commission notes that Ramón Isaza demobilized on February 7, 2006 and decided to resort to the Justice and Peace Law. In that regard, in conformity with the Resolutions of April 22 and July 13, 2009, the Prosecution Unit for Justice and Peace requested suspension of the two criminal proceedings concerning the events of the present case in connection with Ramón Isaza. Regarding this, the Commission notes that, according to the Justice and Peace Law, the proceedings being heard in ordinary courts can be suspended and brought together in the proceedings heard in the framework of the Justice and Peace Law.385 279. Regarding this, the Inter-American Court has established that “in decisions on the application of various proceedings against an individual, priority must be given to charges of grave violations of human rights.”386 Thus it has underscored that no statute or provision of domestic law can prevent a State from fulfilling its obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations.387 280. The Commission observes that, in all of his voluntary statements, Ramón Isaza indicated that the events of the present case were planned and executed by military agents and members of the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio. In that respect, the Commission contended that, although he did not participate directly in the events, he knew about the operation that would take place, as a result of which he could be held responsible for what happened because of his status as leader of the SelfDefense Forces of Magdalena Medio. 281. The IACHR also noted that, from the date of Ramón Isaza’s demobilization up to his first statement, i) more than 14 months elapsed until his first statement to a judicial authority; ii) one year eight months elapsed until a public hearing was held for his voluntary confession; and iii) almost two years elapsed until the hearing where imputation charges were brought. According to information accessible to the public, the Commission observes that to date there is no final judgment against Ramón Isaza. 384 IACHR, Statement by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the Application and Scope of the Justice and Peace Law in Colombia, 2006, paragraph 11; IACHR, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2010, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 5 corr. 1, March 7, 2011, Chapter IV. Colombia, paragraph 48, with quote from the Constitution Court, Case File D-6032 - Judgment C-370/06, arguments made public on July 13, 2006. 385 Law 975 of 2005. Article 16. For the procedural effects of the present law, proceedings that are under way for crimes perpetrated during and on the occasion of the demobilized person’s belonging to an organized armed group outside the law shall be brought to together for processing. In no case, shall conducts punishable by law committed prior to the demobilized person’s belonging to the organized armed group outside the law be acceptable for accumulation […] 386 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Order on Monitoring Compliance of the Judgment. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, paragraph 41. 387 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 304; Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, paragraphs 83 to 84; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paragraphs 276 to 277; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 116; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, paragraph 15; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, paragraph 105, and Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paragraph 168.