16 judge and, if applicable, punish the responsible, which entail the development of national and international means, instruments and mechanisms to effectively prosecute such conducts and punish the perpetrators, in order to prevent such acts and avoid them carry on unpunished. Furthermore, the State cannot provide direct or indirect protection to the accused of crimes humanity by means of the improper application of legal concepts that threaten the pertinent international obligations. In this way, the concept of extradition cannot consist, either, in a means to favor, foster or guarantee impunity. 41. That, according to what was informed, at least one of the former paramilitary chiefs, who were prosecuted, has been extradited from Colombia to other State of the area, though there will an accusation against him for several charges related to the serious facts of this case. In fact, since the merits stage and during the whole monitoring compliance stage, the State has mentioned the accusation against Mr. Mancusso as one of the main achievements of the internal investigations. The Court considers that in the decisions regarding the application of certain procedural concepts to one person, the accusation of serious human rights violations must prevail. The application of concepts like the extradition must not serve as a means to favor, foster or guarantee impunity. Hence, based on the lack of agreement as to the judicial cooperation between the States that arranged such extradition,21 it falls upon Colombia to clarify the mechanisms, instruments and legal concepts that shall be applied to guarantee that the extradited person will collaborate with the investigations into the facts of the instant case, as well as, if applicable, to guarantee the due process. The State must guarantee that the proceedings conducted outside Colombia will not interfere or hinder the investigations into the serious violations commited in the instant case or affect the rights of the victims recognized in the Judgment. * * * 42. That it is necessary to note that more than 12 years have passed since the Mapiripán massacre and more than 3 since the Tribunal delivered the Judgment. The Court notes the work done by the Attorney General’s Office, through the Human Rights Unit, since 30 people have been associated with the investigation, 18 have been accused and 13 have been convicted. Some of these results were already known by the time this Judgment was rendered, even the information related to one of the former paramilitary chiefs.22 During the year 2008, the Court notes more actions taken by the Attorney General's Office and orders to formally join other persons to the criminal proceeding. 43. That the Court notes the lack of specific actions addressed to identify and formally join all the responsible and perpetrators of the massacre to the proceeding, particularly, those addressed to public servants and members of the law enforcement 21 Before the question made by Judge Macaulay, the State clarified that the issue of cooperation was a request, but not an agreement. 22 Upon confirming that, impunity is reflected in the trial and conviction in absentia of the paramilitary who, while they hold high positions in the structures of the AUC, they have benefited from the way the judicial system has acted, convicting them but without executing the punishment, the Tribunal expressed in the Judgment: “the Court notes the fact communicated by the State, when it sent information requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication, that on August 3d of [2005] an order was issued to formally join Salvatore Mancuso Gómez to the proceeding, but the arrest warrant against him was suspended “due to his role as representative of the Autodefensas Unidas of Colombia in the peace process undertaken by the Government with said organization” (Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” V. Colombia, supra nota 8, para. 240).