12. Regarding the obligation to investigate, the Court recalls that in ordering this measure of reparation in the Judgment it took into account that the State had violated the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection in this case given that (i) military courts carried out the investigation and prosecution of law enforcement personnel in relation to the violations to the detriment of the 19 tradesmen, contravening the standards established in the American Convention, and (ii) the criminal proceedings in which the civilians involved in the case were tried did not respect the principle of reasonable time and were not effective as regards the search for the remains of the 19 tradesmen.7 13. Likewise, the Court recalls that when it delivered the Judgment with the regard to what happened to the first 17 victims8 in this case, the ordinary jurisdiction had convicted two civilians as authors of the crime of aggravated homicide; two civilians as accomplices to the crime of aggravated homicide; and another civilian for the crime of extortive kidnapping (kidnapping for ransom).9 The latter civilian was also convicted in the ordinary jurisdiction for the crime of extortive kidnapping for what happened to the other victims.10 On this point, in its Judgment, the Court established that the impunity for those responsible for the actions in this case was partial, given that the criminal proceedings were conducted in the ordinary courts, although these had not observed the principle of reasonable time. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that in its Judgment it also concluded that “for more than sixteen years, there was a situation of impunity in relation to the investigation and punishment by competent courts of the law enforcement personnel.”11 14. Since the Court issued the Order of July 8, 2009, the State has reported that: (i) five statements were collected, four of these from members or relatives of members of paramilitary groups that carried out the detention and execution of the 19 tradesmen, and one from a retired General, without their results having been reported to the Court; (ii) an order was issued to close the criminal proceedings due to the death of a former military 7 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 256. 8 In instant case, 17 tradesmen were detained on October 6, 1987 by members of the “paramilitary” group or criminal group that operated in the Municipality of Puerto Boyacá, in the region of Magdalena Medio, who subsequently “murdered them […], dismembered their bodies and tossed them into the “El Ermitaño” brook, a tributary of the Magdalena River.” Approximately fifteen days after the disappearance of the 17 tradesmen, Juan Alberto Montero Fuentes and José Ferney Fernández Díaz, relatives of some of the tradesmen, were detained by the aforementioned “paramilitary” group when they were found searching for the disappeared and suffered “the same fate as the first seventeen (17) disappeared persons.” Case of 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 85(e) 85(f), 85(h). 9 A third civilian had also been convicted as a perpetrator of the crime of aggravated homicide of these 17 tradesmen; however, this accused died in the course of an appeal, and therefore the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the criminal proceeding closed due to the death of the defendant. Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 88(f), 88(h), 88(i), 88(j), 88(k), 88(m), 88(o), 202(i), 202(ii) and 202(iii). 10 Upon delivering the judgment of second instance that accused the civilian of the crime of kidnapping for extortion, the National Tribunal acquitted three defendants for the crimes of homicide and kidnapping for ransom of these two victims, because “despite considering proven that the death of Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández was carried out by outlaw groups, the entire body of evidence provided does not make it possible to specifically determine or individualize who acted as perpetrators, masterminds and accomplices.” Likewise, the Criminal Court of the Special Circuit of San Gil acquitted three other individuals of the crimes of homicide and kidnapping for ransom to the detriment of Juan Alberto Montero Fuentes and José Ferney Fernández Díaz because “there was not enough evidence […] to specify who the perpetrators could be” of the homicide of Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández; however, it noted that “the same [paramilitary] group could be held responsible.” Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 88(h), 88(k), 88(m), 88(o) and 202(iv). 11 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 257. 6