85 293. It must be noted, under the same reasoning, that the grant of legal benefits to members of illegal armed groups (as established in Decree No. 128 of 2003) who claim not to have been involved in the complex structure of serious human rights violations requires the utmost due diligence to verify that the beneficiary did actually not participate in the structure responsible for the commission of such crimes. 294. This Court has consistently found inadmissible all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility, because these provisions and measures are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations, such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance. Such violations are prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.266 295. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the State must, within a reasonable time, and taking into account this Judgment’s paragraphs 151 to 198, effectively conduct both current and future criminal proceedings and adopt all such measures necessary to clarify the events in this case in order to identify those responsible for the violations. The findings in such proceedings shall be publicized by the State in such a way as to enable the Colombian society to know the truth regarding the events of the Rochela Massacre. b) Protection of judicial officials, witnesses, victims and their next of kin 296. The Court finds it especially important to emphasize that the events analyzed in this Judgment demonstrate the danger which judiciary officials confront due to the nature of their work. The present case represents an extreme example of crimes committed in order to impede both the fulfillment of their functions and their attempts to end impunity. 297. In order to prevent the repetition of these events, the Court considers it important that the State provide its judicial officers, prosecutors, investigators and other justice officials with recourse to an adequate security and protection system that takes into account the circumstances of the cases under their jurisdiction and their places of work so that they may perform their duties with due diligence. Furthermore, the State must ensure effective protection of witnesses, victims and relatives in cases of serious human rights violations, particularly and immediately with regard to the investigation of the events in this case. c) Medical and Psychological Assistance 298. According to the affidavits267 and the expert report268 rendered in these proceedings, the events in this case have caused physical and psychological suffering to the next of kin of 266 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos, supra note 201, para. 41. See also, cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 152; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 112; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 402. 267 Cf. affidavits offered by Esperanza Uribe Mantilla, Elvia Ferreira Useche, Luz Mireya Morales Cepeda, Erika Esmeralda Vargas Herrera, Nubia Vesga Fonseca, Luz Nelly Carvajal Londoño, Luz Marina Poveda León, Paola Martínez Ortiz, Alonso Castillo Mayoral, Sandra Paola Morales Bóveda, Sócrates Vesálio Guasca Castro, María Carmenza Morales Cepeda, Myriam Stella Morales Caro and Alfonso Morales Cárdenas (record of witness statements and expert reports, pages 7234 to 7237; 7223 to 7225; 7241 and 7242; 7227 to 7228; 7120 to 7124; 7310 to 7312; 6997 to 7000; 7012 to 7016; 7019 to 7030; 7003 to 7006; 7446 and 7447; 7439 to 7441; 7428 and 7429; and 7453 and 7454, respectively); and testimony offered by Arturo Salgado Garzón, Alejandra María Beltrán Uribe and Virgilio Alfonso Hernández Castellanos in the public hearing before the Inter-American Court held January 31 and February 1, 2007.