that facilitates the complete identification of the injured victims, as well as the next of kin of the executed victims.” 246. The representatives asked that the State be ordered to open a new criminal investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction with regard to the facts of this case and to adopt the corresponding administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures to respond to the acts or omission of the State officials that contributed to the denial of justice and the impunity of the facts of this case. 247. The State indicated during the public hearing, and reaffirmed in its final arguments, that it “has complied with its obligation to investigate the facts of the case. The investigations undertaken by the State responded to criteria based on impartiality, objectivity and the search for the truth. […] Now that these stages have been completed in the criminal courts, the claim for compensation for the victims, presumed victims, and their heirs for the presumed harm caused, remains pending before our country’s the civil courts.” 248. In Chapter VII-3, this Court determined that the State had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and, at the time of the facts, also the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Article 2 of the Convention in relation to Articles 8 and 25 thereof. Specifically, the Court considered that the intervention of the military jurisdiction in the investigation, prosecution and subsequent acquittal of the accused contravened the parameters of exceptionality and restriction that characterize that jurisdiction and signified an application of a personal jurisdiction that functioned without taking into account the nature of the acts involved (supra paras. 198 and 201). Consequently, the Court recalls that, in cases of grave human rights violations,305 a nonguilty verdict that constitutes apparent res judicata cannot represent an obstacle to the reopening of the investigation or the proceedings (supra paras. 195 to 198).306 249. Consequently, this Court establishes that the State must adopt the following measures: a) Re-open the investigation of all facts and background information related to the instant case in the ordinary jurisdiction in order to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts of the case. The State must lead and conclude the relevant investigations and proceedings within a reasonable time; 305 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velázquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 18, 2010, Considering paragraph 44: “when dealing with grave and systematic violations to human rights, […], the impunity of such conduct due to the lack of investigation is a rather high infringement of the victims’ rights. The extent of this infringement not only authorizes but also demands an exceptional limitation of the guarantee of ne bis in idem, in order to allow the re-opening of these investigations when the decision argued as res judicata stems from the evident non-compliance with the obligations to investigate and severely punish grave violations. In such cases, the preponderance of the victims’ rights over legal certainty and ne bis in idem is even more evident, since the victims not only underwent atrocious behavior but they must also endure the indifference of the State, which clearly fails to comply with its obligation to clarify the acts, punish those responsible, and make reparation to those affected. The seriousness of the events of these cases is of such magnitude that it affects the essence of social coexistence and, at the same time, prevents any type of legal certainty. Therefore, when analyzing the legal remedies that may be filed by the defendants for grave human rights violations, the Court underlines that the judicial authorities are obliged to determine whether the deviation in the use of a criminal guarantee can result in a disproportionate restriction of the victims’ rights, where a clear violation of the right to access justice affects the criminal procedural guarantee of res judicata.” 306 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 131 and 132; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 154; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 197, and Case of Guitierrez Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 99. 66