43 pursue, capture, prosecute, and convict all the material and immaterial authors, particularly when State agents are or could be involved.122 149. The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that the investigation into the violations perpetrated in this case should have been conducted with the most rigorous due diligence. This diligence was required not only because the investigation related to a massacre, but also owing to the seriousness of the fact that this massacre was directed at judicial officials in the course of their work, and was aimed at affecting their investigation of grave violations in which members of paramilitary groups and senior military commanders had participated. At the same time, the massacre represented a clear and threatening message that this type of crime should not be investigated. 150. With the foregoing in mind, in this section the Court will examine whether the proceedings have been conducted with due diligence, whether they have respected judicial guarantees, and whether they have constituted an effective recourse to ensure the rights to judicial access, to know the truth of the events, and the right to reparations for the next of kin. a) Proceedings in the ordinary criminal courts 151. The Commission and the representatives argue that, to a large extent, impunity reigns in relation to the Rochela Massacre because all those who took part in it have not been prosecuted and punished. In this regard, the State indicated that “according to the investigations in the ordinary jurisdiction, more than 100 persons initially thought to be related to the massacre did not have a direct connection with the events but rather were connected to the paramilitary phenomenon as a whole” and that “[c]onsequently, the assertions that all these individuals should all be prosecuted and punished for the events of ‘The Rochela’ are erroneous.” 152. The Court will first provide a general overview of the proceedings filed in the ordinary criminal courts during the past 18 years that have elapsed since the massacre occurred and note the results of these proceedings, before examining their effectiveness. 153. The Court finds it necessary to include some general information about the development of the investigations: (a) between January 1989 and November 1990 the investigations took place initially within a Commission composed of the criminal courts of first instance of Barrancabermeja, Bucaramanga and Bogotá; however, due to death threats against the judges in charge of the case, the investigations were transferred to the Second Court of Public Order of Pasto. During this stage, judgments of the first and second instance were delivered in June and November 1990 with regard to 28 of the accused. In these judgments convictions, acquittals and nullifications were ordered;123 122 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 256; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 111; and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 117. 123 Cf. judgment of June 29, 1990, delivered by the Second Court of Public Order of Pasto (record of evidences to the application, evidence A31, pages 441 to 443); and judgment of November 14, 1990, delivered by the Sentencing Chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Public Order [Sala de Decisión del Tribunal Superior de Orden Público] (record of evidences to the application, evidence A32, pages 489 to 503 and 523 to 525).