representatives stated that, “the obstacles to obtaining justice in this case” include the Justice and Peace Law and the impunity it created because of the refusal of the paramilitaries to testify before the ordinary justice system or the specialized human rights justice system; the extradition of the paramilitary leaders and the absence of an agreement with the United States of America; the absence of a State criminal justice policy aimed at investigating paramilitarism, its roots and infiltration within the institutional framework, and the murder of key witnesses. In short, the representatives stated that investigations “have not been conducted with the due diligence to identify the masterminds and co-authors” of the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Valle Jaramillo. 12. The Commission observed that the information provided by the State makes it possible to conclude that the “processing [of appeal for review No. 29075] is not being conducted with the required due diligence and promptness.” With regard to criminal proceedings 2900-0184, the Commission had assessed the updated information provided by the State and was waiting for information on other proceedings to identify and impose the appropriate punishments on all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts. Regarding criminal investigation No. 2100, it observed that the State had not provided updated information. Finally, the Commission observed that there is no information to show that the Colombian system of justice is dealing with this investigation integrally, taking into account its complexity, and it has not presented a copy of the measures taken or a description of the investigation in the proceedings. 13. The Court assesses positively the information provided by the State on this operative paragraph. It also assesses positively the different efforts made by the State, through the Prosecutor General’s Office, in relation to this matter, as well as the legal actions undertaken that, as an unfortunate consequence, have jeopardized the safety of its agents and officials. 14. Regarding appeal for review No. 29075 (the progress of which was reported by the State), this Court must recall that, as stated in the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1), it had been admitted for processing by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 1, 2008. Since then, almost three years have passed without a final ruling being issued. 15. Furthermore, when assessing compliance with the obligation to investigate in this case, it must be recalled that, in the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1), the Court stated that other cases before it “have revealed ‘the existence of numerous cases of connections between paramilitaries and members of law enforcement personnel with regard to facts similar to those that occurred in this case, as well as omissive attitudes of law enforcement personnel regarding the actions of these groups.’”6 In addition, in the instant case, the judgment emphasized that, one month before his death, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo had denounced collusion between members of State law enforcement personnel and paramilitaries, and one day before his death, he testified about these denunciations.7 The Court held that these 6 Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 76, citing Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 96.19; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 128, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 125.24. 7 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 94. 6