56 to justice. Even though there have been some investigations and convictions, impunity remains in this case, to the extent that the entire truth about the events has not been determined and all those responsible for the events have not been identified. The Court must observe, as it has in other cases concerning Colombia,186 that the events that are the subject of this Judgment form part of a situation in which a high level of impunity exists for criminal acts perpetrated by paramilitary forces with the acquiescence, collaboration and support of members of the security forces. If the illegal actions of these groups are not adequately addressed by the judiciary, in a manner faithful to the international commitments of the State, fertile ground is created such that these state-supported groups which operate illegally may continue to commit acts like those of the present case. 179. Based on all the above findings, the Tribunal concludes that the criminal proceedings in relation to the events of the Rochela Massacre have not been conducted within a reasonable time and have not constituted an effective recourse to ensure the rights to judicial access, the determination of the truth of the events, and reparation for the alleged victims and their next of kin. * * * 180. In the proceedings before the Court, the parties have submitted allegations, information, and documentation with regard to Law 975 of 2005 known as the “Justice and Peace Law,”187 which forms part of the normative framework for the demobilization process of paramilitary groups,188 reinsertion, and the granting of penal benefits. The parties have also submitted allegations, information and documentation with regard to other pieces of this normative framework, such as Decree 128 of 2003. 181. On January 22, 2003, the Government adopted Decree 128 of 2003 in order to regulate the implementation of Law 418 of 1997.189 This decree established socio-economic and other benefits for those individuals who demobilized. Article 13 established “juridical benefits” and stipulated that, “pursuant to the law, those who formed part of illegal armed organizations who demobilize will have the right to a pardon, conditional suspension of the execution of sentence, cessation of proceedings, preclusion of the investigation, or a writ of 186 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 324; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 149; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 12, para. 235. 187 Cf. Law 975 of 2005 of July 25, 2005, “by which dispositions for the reincorporation of organized illegal armed groups are dictated. These dispositions effectively contribute to the attainment of national peace. Other dispositions are dictated with regard to humanitarian accords” (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VIII, evidence 77(1), pages 3868 to 3886); and the Commission’s application, paragraph 85 (record of the merits and possible reparations and costs, volume I, page 28). 188 In August 2002, several leaders of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia [Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia] (hereinafter “the AUC”) publicly announced their intention to negotiate terms for the demobilization of their forces. At that time, when negotiations commenced, the procedures for the demobilization of illegal armed forces were regulated by Law 418 of 1997 (which included several dispositions for reconciliation, judicial effectiveness, and other dispositions). This Law was extended by Law 548 of 1999 and Law 782 of 2002. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 125.14 and 125.16; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacres. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 95.18. 189 In 2003, an action was filed before the Council of State to invalidate several provisions of Decree 128 of 2003. This action has not yet been resolved and, according to a certification issued by the Secretariat of the First Division of the Administrative Law Chamber of the Council of State [Secretario de la Sección Primera de la Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo del Consejo de Estado], it is “awaiting a ruling.” (record of evidences to the State’s written closing arguments, volume II, evidence 1B, page 7976.