118 responsible for the violations of rights protected by the American Convention.”243 In this regard, the Court has established that the State has the obligation to combat impunity by all available legal means, because it encourages the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.244 300. The Court appreciates the difficult circumstances that Colombia is experiencing, in which its population and its institutions are endeavoring to achieve peace. Nevertheless, the country’s situation, however difficult, does not liberate the State Party to the American Convention from its obligations under this treaty, which subsist particularly in cases such as this one.245 The Court has maintained that by implementing or tolerating actions aimed at carrying out extrajudicial executions, failing to investigate them adequately and, when applicable, failing to punish those responsible effectively, the State violates its obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention and to guarantee their free and full exercise to both the alleged victims and their next of kin, prevents society from knowing what happened,246 and reproduces the conditions of impunity for this type of acts to be repeated.247 301. The Court will now examine the measures taken in the ordinary criminal investigation into the events of La Granja and, then, those corresponding to El Aro, to determine how the State failed to comply with its obligation under the Convention. i) Criminal proceedings concerning the events in La Granja 302. In the case of La Granja it has been proved that the paramilitary group raided this district on June 11, 1996, and that the preliminary inquiry into the facts lasted three years. It was not until June 17, 1999, that the National Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office decided to open the pre-trial proceedings (supra para. 125(43)). 303. It has been proved that more than 20 persons (supra para. 125(33)) took part in the incursion in La Granja and that they acted with the acquiescence and tolerance of the law enforcement bodies. However, ten years after these events, the State has only convicted four persons. Moreover, the arrest warrants issued against Carlos Castaño Gil, Isaías Montes Hernández and Fabio León Mejía Uribe, members of the paramilitary group, have not been executed, which renders the whole 243 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 237; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 203; and the Serrano Cruz Sisters case. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 170. 244 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 168; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 266; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 237. 245 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 146; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 5, para. 170; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 238. 246 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 146; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 238; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 153. 247 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 195; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 266; and Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 76.