49 responsibilities in a case,122 the Court recognizes their complementary role in guaranteeing the rights recognized in the Convention. C) Administrative law proceedings 167. In addition to the criminal and disciplinary proceedings examined above, the Court notes the fact, which has not been disputed, that on March 16, 2000, some of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s next of kin filed a complaint under the direct reparation procedure before the Administrative Court of Antioquia against the Nation, represented by the Ministry of Defense, the Army, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, the National Police, the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), the Department of Antioquia, and the Municipality of Medellín, for the facts that occurred on February 27, 1998. The judgment in first instance was adverse to the complainants, who on April 26, 2007, entered into a settlement agreement before the Council of State. In this settlement, the State agreed to make partial reparation to those victims and their next of kin who were parties to the administrative proceeding. In this regard, in keeping with its case law on the obligation to repair resulting from a violation of the Convention (infra paras. 201 to 210), the Court recognizes the role of the administrative jurisdiction as regards reparations and assesses positively that, in the domestic sphere, the State has made partial reparation to some of the victims in the instant case. This constitutes a significant contribution to the integral reparation of the violations declared in this judgment. Nevertheless, the scope and repercussions of the decisions made by that instance will be examined in the chapter on reparations (infra paras. 201 to 208). For the effects of this section, it is sufficient for the Court to observe that, although the purpose of the proceeding was to make reparation to the victims and their next of kin for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from the facts, an administrative proceeding does not constitute per se an effective and adequate remedy to make integral reparation for this violation.123 * * * 168. In conclusion, despite the progress indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the Court finds that impunity prevails in the instant case because domestic procedures and proceedings have not constituted effective remedies to ensure access to justice, to investigate and eventually punish all those who took part in the perpetration of the violations, including the possible participation of State agents, to execute the arrest warrants issued against those responsible who have already been convicted, and to provide integral reparation for the consequences of the violations. 169. Based on the above observations in this chapter and bearing in mind the State’s acknowledgement of the facts and its acquiescence, the Court finds that the State violated the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation embodied in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Nelly Valle Jaramillo, Alfonso Montoya Restrepo, Luis Fernando Montoya Valle, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, Gloria Lucía Correa, Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa, María Lucía Jaramillo Correa, Ana Carolina Jaramillo Correa, Jesús Emilio Jaramillo Barrera, Adela Correa de Jaramillo, Blanca Lucía Jaramillo Correa, Romelia Jaramillo Correa, Nellyda Jaramillo Correa, José María Jaramillo Correa, Luís Eugenio 122 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 21, para. 215; Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, paras. 206 and 215, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 327. 123 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 21, para. 214; Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, paras. 220 and 222, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 340.