107 279. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right enshrined in Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the inhabitants of La Granja and El Aro (supra para. 278), as well as the rights embodied in Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 6, 7, 11(2), 21, 22 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims indicated in Appendixes I, II, III and IV of this judgment, who have been identified as victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention. XV ARTICLES 8(1) AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) The Commission’s arguments 280. The Inter-American Commission considered that the State had violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, because: (a) Nine years after the incursion in La Granja and eight years after the armed incursion in El Aro, “the State has not yet complied substantially with its obligation to clarify the facts, prosecute and punish those responsible effectively, and make adequate reparation to the alleged victims and their next of kin”; (b) The delay in the clarification of these cases not only violates the right to justice and reparation of the alleged victims and their next of kin, but contributes “to perpetuating acts of violence and intimidation against witnesses and prosecutors involved in clarifying the facts”; (c) Most of the decisions in the domestic proceedings in relation to the facts of this case are recent and investigations are still ongoing; (d) Most of the authors have not been captured even if they have been prosecuted, and even when “final sentences against them exist and the whereabouts of some of those convicted is known, they have not been detained.” This is due, in part, to the existence of a law that suspends the capture of those persons who are taking part in negotiating procedures with the Government; (e) The application of the Justice and Peace Act (Act 975 of 2005) is not a guarantee that the crimes perpetrated will be duly clarified; therefore, “the facts of many of them will never be know and the authors will enjoy impunity”; (f) The alleged victims and their next of kin promoted the investigation with the means available to them, despite the well-founded fear of reporting the facts and those responsible; and (g) Of the eight disciplinary proceedings filed and, of the many complaints submitted by both private individuals and the judicial authorities