these proceedings. Moreover, four years have elapsed since the investigations were re-opened in 2009, which, bearing in mind the complexity of the matter, does not seem excessive. This can be reaffirmed, taking into account that the re-opening of the investigation by the Prosecutor General’s Office was based on the emergence of supervening facts and evidence that had to be investigated (supra para. 154). 402. Regarding the investigations of the members of the paramilitary groups, the Court notes that although the events submitted to the Court’s consideration happened more than 15 years ago, it is only recently, since the process of the demobilization of paramilitary groups and guerrillas started and the Justice and Peace Law was promulgated, that the investigations into the crimes committed by their members were reactivated. 403. With regard to these investigations of members of paramilitary groups, two different periods exist in the investigations: the first was from 1997 to 2004 approximately, during which the demobilization process commenced, and the second ensued from 2004 to date. Regarding the first period, the failure to conduct investigations until seven years after the events is evident and, consequently, the reasonable time was significantly exceeded. However, from the start of the demobilization of the illegal armed groups, and above all with the entry into force of the Justice and Peace Law, the State conducted investigations without any interruption aimed at determining the responsibility of paramilitaries for human rights violations in general, and in this case in particular. Although the proceedings have not been concluded, the State has informed this Court that the truth of the voluntary confessions is being verified, that two paramilitaries have been charged during a hearing, and that most of the candidates have been deprived of liberty since the start of their demobilization several years ago awaiting judgment. In addition, the actions taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office since 2004 have produced valuable information that has been determinant in expediting other proceedings relating to the facts of the case, and as indicated by expert witness Ciurlizza and the deponent for information purposes Samper, have also been decisive in revealing information relating to other judicial proceedings. B.3. Considerations on the applications for amparo concerning collective ownership 404. The Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in general terms, the obligation of States to guarantee an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate fundamental rights. When interpreting the text of Article 25 of the Convention, the Court has maintained, on other occasions, that the State’s obligation to provide a judicial remedy is not reduced to the mere existence of the courts or the formal proceedings or even to the possibility of having recourse to the courts. Rather, the State must adopt positive measures to ensure that the remedies that it provides through the judicial system are “truly effective to establish whether or not there has been a human rights violation and to provide reparation.”648 Thus, the Court has declared that “the inexistence of an effective remedy against the violation of the rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a breach of the Convention by the State Party in which this situation occurs.”649 405. The Court has affirmed, also, that for a State to comply with the provisions of this article, it is not sufficient that the remedies exist formally, but they must be effective.650 Thus, 648 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 177. See also Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 649 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 261, and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, para. 24. 650 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, paras. 63, 68 and 81, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series 128