135 236. The Court notes that such an operation could not be overlooked by the high military commanders in the area from which the paramilitary left and through which they moved. Some of the facts with regard to planning and execution of the massacre are included in the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, and even though some of those responsible for the massacre have been convicted, there is still widespread impunity in the instant case, insofar as the truth of all the facts has not been established and not all the masterminds and direct perpetrators of those facts have been identified. Furthermore, it is a significant fact that some of the convicted paramilitary are not serving their sentence because the arrest warrants against them have not been enforced. 237. The Court has repeatedly pointed out that the State has the duty to avoid and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the overall lack of investigation, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”266 In this regard, the Court has asserted that: [...] the State is obliged to combat this situation by all available legal means. Impunity promotes the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.267 238. In this regard, the Court recognizes the difficult circumstances of Colombia, where its population and its institutions strive to attain peace. However, the country’s conditions, no matter how difficult, do not release a State Party to the American Convention of its obligations set forth in this treaty, which specifically continue in cases such as the instant one.268 The Court has argued that when the State conducts or tolerates actions leading to extra-legal executions, not investigating them adequately and not punishing those responsible, as appropriate, it breaches the duties to respect rights set forth in the Convention and to ensure their free and full exercise, both by the alleged victim and by his or her next of kin, it does not allow society to learn what happened,269 and it reproduces the conditions of impunity for this type of facts to happen once again.270 239. In this regard, as mentioned in the chapter on International Responsibility of the State in this Judgment (supra paras. 101 to 123), the Court bears in mind that a large number of cases of ties between the military and members of the security forces have been documented in Colombia, in connection with facts such as those of the instant case.271 In the reports published since 1997 on the human rights situation 266 See Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 203. Likewise, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 170, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 185, para. 148. 267 See Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 126. Likewise, Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 203; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 170, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 185, para. 148. 268 See Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 153; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note , para. 118, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 201, para. 207. 269 See Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 78, para. 134, and Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, paras. 99 to 101 and 109. 270 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 185, para. 130, and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 156. 271 See Report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Colombia, E/CN.4/2005/10, February 28, 2005, paras. 61 and 62; statement by expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán rendered before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held