128 a) in the proceeding initiated by Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, spouse of Sinaí Blanco Santamaría, she stated that she did not wish to settle in face of the settlement proposal by the State (supra para. 96.132); b) the decision by the Administrative Court of Meta that approves the aforementioned settlements also accepts the waiver of claims in an application filed by the next of kin of Néstor Orlando Flórez Escucha (supra para. 96.131); and c) according to what the State expressed, said agreements and the last waiver, once approved, have led to res judicata (supra para. 96.131). 209. On the other hand, when they provided information as evidence to facilitate adjudication, the representatives mentioned that there are at least 10 applications, “filed by the next of kin of victims in connection with the facts in Mapiripán, which are being processed under administrative law,” and they also referred to information on displaced persons “who are not represented by the Colectivo de Abogados [“José Alvear Restrepo”] in administrative-law proceedings in Colombia, and who [they] know have received humanitarian aid due to the facts in Mapiripán”. The Court is not aware of the reasons why the representatives did not report the existence of those other administrative-law proceedings until the end of this proceeding, even though apparently most of them began in 1999. The representatives also did not report on the reasons why they did not represent these persons who are allegedly next of kin of victims of the massacre. For lack of further information, the Court will not refer in this Judgment to those administrative-law proceedings filed by those other individuals mentioned as alleged next of kin of victims of the Mapiripán Massacre, without detriment to their asserting their rights before the national authorities. 210. When it assesses the effectiveness of domestic remedies sought under national administrative-law jurisdiction, the court must establish whether the decisions taken by the latter have in fact contributed to ending impunity, to insuring non-recidivism of injurious acts, and to guaranteeing free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention. 211. The Court recalls that the aim of International Human Rights Law is to give the individual means for the protection of internationally recognized human rights vis-à-vis the State (its bodies, its agents, and all those who act in its name). Under international jurisdiction the parties and the subject matter of the dispute are, by definition, different from those under domestic venue.251 When it establishes the international responsibility of the State for abridging the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, the substantive aspect of the dispute is not whether judgments were issued in the domestic venue or whether settlement agreements were reached regarding the administrative or civil liability of a body of the State, with regard to violations against the next of kin of some victims of the facts in Mapiripán, but rather whether the domestic proceedings enabled protection of true access to justice in accordance with the standards set forth in the American Convention. 212. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights addressed the scope of civil responsibility with regard to the requirements of international protection in the case of Yasa versus Turkey, and it deemed that 251 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 56; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, para. 73, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 190, para. 181.