143 and other agents of justice, as well as the former and current inhabitants of Ituango.278 401. However, the Court appreciates the following projects and public policies that the State has already implemented as other forms of reparation and which the State reported during the proceedings: public policy project to combat impunity for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; public policy projects on displacement and on witness protection; and plan of action for the displaced population implemented as a result of judgment T-025 of 2004 of the Colombian Constitutional Court. * * * 402. The Court reiterates its consistent case law279 to the effect that no law or provision of domestic legislation can prevent a State from complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations. In particular, provisions regarding amnesty and the statute of limitations, and the establishment of mechanisms to exclude responsibility, which seek to impede the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible for grave human rights violations, such as those in this case, are unacceptable. The Court reiterates that the State’s obligation to investigate adequately and punish, if applicable, those responsible, must be fulfilled diligently in order to avoid impunity and the recurrence of this type of event b) Appropriate treatment for the victims’ next of kin 403. The Court considers it necessary to order a measure of reparation that seeks to reduce the physical and psychological sufferings of all the next of kin of the victims executed. To help repair this damage, the Court orders the State to provide the appropriate treatment for these persons, once they have expressed their consent, through the national health services, free of charge and for the time necessary, including medication. When providing psychological care, the specific circumstances and needs of each person must be considered so that they are provided with collective, family or individual care, as agreed with each of them and following an individual evaluation. c) State guarantees of security for the former inhabitants of the Municipality of Ituango who decide to return 404. The Court is aware that some inhabitants of Ituango do not wish to return to La Granja and El Aro, because they fear they will continue to be threatened by the paramilitary groups. It is possible that this situation will not change until an effective investigation has been completed and also judicial proceedings that result in the clarification of the facts and the punishment of those responsible. When the former inhabitants, who have not already done so, decide to return to Ituango, the State 278 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 268; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 299. 279 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 201; Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 5, para. 98; and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 247, para. 140.