violations by the undue application of legal concepts that violate the relevant international obligations. Consequently, the application of mechanisms such as extradition should not serve as a means of promoting, ensuring or guaranteeing impunity.13 Thus, when deciding on the application of these procedural mechanisms to any individual, the State authorities must ensure that the charges of serious human rights violations prevail.14 In any case, the State has the obligation to take the necessary steps to ensure that individuals involved in serious human rights violations, or those who may possess relevant information about such violations, are brought to justice, or cooperate with it, when they are required to do so.15 In this regard, the State is obliged to remove any obstacle that prevents it from complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations. 19. Lastly, the Court is waiting for updated information on the outcome of the appeal filed by the person sentenced on September 17, 2010, to 300 months imprisonment for the aggravated murder of Jesus Maria Valle Jaramillo. 20. In sum, the Court emphasizes, as indicated in the judgment, that the right of access to justice means that the dispute must be settled within a reasonable time, since a long delay may become, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.16 In this case, the Court underscores that more than 13 years have passed since the facts occurred and the respective criminal proceedings are yet to be completed. Therefore, the Court deems that partial impunity subsists in this case, insofar as the whole truth about the facts has not been determined, in particular as regards determining and eventually punishing all the masterminds and perpetrators. To monitor this aspect, the State must continue to submit complete and current information on all of the measures taken. In addition, the State must publish the results of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraph 233 of the judgment, so that Colombian society may know the whole truth regarding the facts. Regarding the foregoing, the Court will continue to await the results of investigations in order to take the appropriate decision in this respect. c) Regarding the State’s obligation to publish certain paragraphs of the judgment and its operative paragraphs once in the Official Gazette and once in another national newspaper with widespread circulation (fifteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 21. The State reported that the publication in the Official Gazette of the parts of the judgment ordered by the Court was made on July 29, 2009, and provided copies of the publication. Regarding the publication in a national newspaper, it indicated that, on July 15, 2009, it had sent the representatives a document with an alternative to the indicated paragraphs of the judgment in order to reach agreement on publication of a document that would be more readily understood by society in general. It indicated that, having received no response, it initiated the respective administrative procedures to publish the paragraphs specified by the Court. The publication was made in an insert in El Espectador, a newspaper “with extensive national circulation,” on Sunday, 13 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, fortieth considering paragraph, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 12, para. 166. 14 Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 13, forty-first considering paragraph, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 12, para. 166. 15 16 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 12, para. 166. Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et el. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 154. 8