30 130. Finally, according to submissions of the petitioners not disputed by the State, the Office of the Attorney General had access to witnesses, including the alleged paramilitary group member Emer Humberto Terán and national guardsman Edgar Alfonso González, who both said in their statements that Joe Luis Castillo González was on a list of targets to be eliminated by the paramilitaries who were hired by several cattle ranchers in the area and that the mayor of Machiques had knowledge of this.155 131. In this regard, the Commission finds that, despite the existence of different leads that could have resulted in the identification of those allegedly responsible for the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González, the judicial record in the possession of the Commission shows that the last act in the investigation was carried out on September 19, 2005, after which it remained inactive until it was closed on November 28, 2006. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the State, without justification, suspended the investigation without having conducted procedures necessary to elucidate the facts. 132. The Inter-American Court has found, “[t]he right to effective judicial protection [...] requires that the judges direct the proceeding in such a way as to avoid undue delays and obstructions that lead to impunity, thus frustrating due judicial protection of human rights.” 156 The Commission finds that the omission of certain essential procedures, as well as the failure to investigate the suspected involvement of Colombian paramilitaries in the murder of Joe Luis Castillo González unduly impeded the investigation and led to the closure of the case on November 28, 2006, because the evidence produced by the inquiry was insufficient to bring charges.157 133. In this regard, the Commission has held that “the obligation to investigate and punish every act that entails a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the direct perpetrators of human rights violations be punished, but also the masterminds.” 158 In the instant case the Commission sees that the investigation lasted more than three years but failed to identify anyone as the physical perpetrator or architect of the crime, after which it was closed. In that connection, the InterAmerican Court has indicated that “the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin, to have everything necessary done to uncover the truth of the events and to punish those responsible.”159 134. Consequently, the Commission considers that the State has not taken the necessary steps to meet its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible, and to provide reparation to the victims and their next of kin. As a result, the attack that culminated in the death of Joe Luis Castillo González and injured his wife, Yelitze Moreno de Castillo, and their son, Luis César Castillo Moreno remains in impunity. 135. The Inter-American Court has defined impunity as “the absence of any investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violations of rights protected by the American Convention.”160 Furthermore the Court has observed that “the State has the obligation to combat impunity by all available legal means, because it encourages the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and the 155 CICPC Investigation Report, September 15, 2003. Petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 156 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 210; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 115. 157 Notice, November 28, 2006. Annex 3 of Petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 158 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, par. 109. 159 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par.112. 160 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 299; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 237; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 203; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. Guatemala. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, par. 170.