implication by act or omission in the facts of the case of all the persons investigated and prosecuted, whether or not they are deceased, whether or not they have been convicted before or after the Judgment, together with the acts or crimes of which they are accused, so as to allow the Court to assess the effectiveness of the domestic investigations and to understand the obstacles to compliance with this measure of reparation. 17. Consequently, the Court considers it necessary that the State continue the investigations with the greatest possible diligence in order to determine all those responsible, both direct perpetrators and masterminds, for the violations committed against the victims. As it has indicated on previous occasions, the Court finds it pertinent to underline that a trial that is conducted through to its conclusion and achieves its goal is the clearest sign of zero tolerance for human rights violations, contributes to the reparation of the victims, and demonstrates to society that justice has been done.15 18. In the investigation into the interaction between the illegal group and State agents and civilian authorities, the State must continue conducting with special diligence the exhaustive investigation of all those connected to State institutions as well as of members of paramilitary groups who could be involved. To this end, as decided in this case16 and in others,17 the State must ensure that the extradited paramilitaries can be made available to the competent authorities and that they continue cooperating with the proceedings being conducted in Colombia. Also, the State must ensure that the proceedings abroad do not hamper or interfere with the investigation of the grave violations that occurred in this case or reduce the rights that this Judgment recognizes to the victims, by using mechanisms that make it possible for those extradited to collaborate in the investigations undertaken in Colombia and, if appropriate, for the participation of the victims in the measures taken abroad. 19. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the measure of reparation concerning the obligation to investigate the facts of this case is being complied with. In this regard, the Court finds it essential that, within the time frame established in the operative paragraphs of this Order, the State present complete, detailed and updated information on all the measures undertaken to comply with the obligation, the results obtained, and also a copy of the documentation that substantiates this, so that the Court may verify that the investigations are being conducted with due diligence. b) Obligation to provide appropriate treatment to the victims (sixteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 20. Regarding the State’s obligation to provide the appropriate treatment required by the next of kin of the victims who were executed during the events of this case, during the private hearing on monitoring compliance (supra having seen paragraph 7) and                                                              15 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, twenty-first considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, sixteenth considering paragraph. 16 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 9, 2009, nineteenth considering paragraph. 17 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 216. See also, Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 8, 2009, fortieth and forty-first considering paragraphs. 8