13 points regarding the investigations17 and they considered that no progress was made as to the association of new members of the Police, the Army or the Navy who were identified at the places mentioned in the massacre (at the airports of Urabá and San José de Guaviare and Barrancón) and at the squads that officially existed. As to the order to formally join two paramilitary officers, perpetrators of the massacre, who acknowledged the facts and requested a “plea bargain”, they requested the State to look for the best way to speed up the proceedings and noted that it is still pending the resolution of the legal situation of other paramilitary officers who were associated with the investigation as well as of those who were declared defendant not present in this proceeding and also, of the compliance with the arrest warrants. In addition, they expressed their concern about the demobilization of paramilitary officers, inasmuch as they also felt concern over the absence of guarantees during the proceeding and requested protection of their lives and close relatives in order to freely confess. They pointed out that between 1600 and 1800 demobilized paramilitary officers were murdered, facts that have not been investigated. 29. That the Commission, moreover, expressed its concern about the delay in the investigations due to the replacement of the prosecutor that took up the case; the lack of appointment of a special public prosecutor for the case; the delay in the compliance with the commitment made within the framework of the M.O.S. by the Attorney General's Office in order to prepare a work plan; the shift of the burden to further the proceedings to the representatives of the victims' next-of-kin and the lack of reference made by the State to the progress in the proceedings against some of the instigators. At the hearing, the Commission stated that it valued the progress made in the investigation; and it expressed its concern about the fact that the proceedings do not include the total number or "at least, a significant number" of the instigators or perpetrators of the facts. In the last comments, the Commission emphasized that the State has not informed on the line of investigation completed in order to associate other members of the law enforcement personnel with the investigation. 30. That, upon the delivery of the Judgment, the Court noted the partial results obtained in the criminal proceedings so far and considered that there was a situation of impunity surrounding the case and also, lack of effectiveness in the criminal proceedings, which was shown in two aspects: Most of the responsable have not been associated with the investigations, nor identified or prosecuted; and the paramilitary officers who were prosecuted and convicted “in absentia” had benefited from the ineffectiveness of the execution of the punishment imposed. In this way, Colombia must: a) remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that maintain impunity; b) use all available means to expedite the investigation and the judicial proceeding; and c) provide security guarantees to the victims, investigators, witnesses, human rights advocates, court employees, public prosecutors and other participants in the judicial process, as well as former and current inhabitants of Mapiripán.18 31. That the Court values the initial progress made, within the framework of the M.O.S., in order to create communication channels and the specific commitments in 17 They mentioned that after the delivery of the Judgment of the Inter-American Court, the Nine Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bogotá issued a ruling on November 28, 2007, by which the only person that informed on the facts was convicted. This decision was appealed by the plaintiff, the Solicitor General’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office, but the appeal has not been resolved yet. Furthermore, a complaint for breach of public duty was filed against the judge that presides that court. In addition, they referred to the decision of the Tribunal that upheld the judgment against the then commander of the 2nd Mobile Brigade and other two former military officers, and the appeal for annulment filed against such decision, which is pending resolution at the criminal chamber; as well as other two proceedings against military officers. 18 Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” V. Colombia, supra nota 8, paras. 240 and 295 to 299.