a. The Justice and Peace Law and the impunity that it has promoted. In particular, they stressed that, in this case, the paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso had referred to the Ituango massacres on several occasions, but in a piecemeal manner; however, the representatives of the victims were unable to question him, initially when he was in Colombia, owing to the dynamics of the spontaneous deposition hearings implemented by the Justice and Peace Prosecution Service and, subsequently, because he was extradited. b. The extradition of the paramilitary leaders and the absence of an agreement with the United States of America concerning collaboration with the investigations in which the paramilitary leaders are involved or are required to testify. c. The absence of a State criminal policy to investigate the phenomenon of paramilitarism at all levels in order to clarify its roots and offshoots within the institutional framework at the local, regional and national levels. d. The murder of key witnesses who had testified against former senior State officials, as in the case of the testimony of Francisco Enrique Villalba against former President Uribe Vélez, against members of the latter’s family, and against high-ranking military personnel, as well as the absolute failure to investigate these facts. 11. Regarding the measures that the State should implement according to the proposals made by the representatives, the Commission expressed its hope that the efforts indicated by the State and the correct implementation of the mechanisms for crosschecking data and coordinating would allow progress to be made towards obtaining justice in this case. The Commission also observed that, despite advances in the investigations, the proceedings against two former agents of the Armed Forces had not yet been decided, and the State should provide an explanation for this. It also considered it important to receive information on the procedural situation of the nine accused in case No. 122 concerning the person known as alias “Pilatos,” and on the filing of an application for review in relation to the Angulo brothers. 12. The Court recalls that, in the Judgment, it established that, in order to comply with the obligation to investigate and punish, as appropriate, those responsible for the grave human rights violations that occurred in this case, the State must: (a) remove all the factual and legal obstacles that maintain impunity; (b) use all available means to expedite the investigation and the judicial proceedings, and (c) ensure adequate guarantees of safety for the victims, investigators, witnesses, human rights defenders, court employees, prosecutors and other agents of justice, as well as for the former and actual inhabitants of Ituango.10 In addition, the State should clarify, as applicable, the existence of complex criminal structures and the interrelationships that made the violations possible.11 The Court also established that the State had failed to ensure prompt justice for the victims, because most of those responsible had not been implicated in the investigations or had not been identified or prosecuted, even though the facts of the case were carried out by a group of approximately 30 armed men with the knowledge, tolerance and acquiescence of the                                                              10 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 400. 11 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 194, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 101. 6