- 58 - 164. The Court finds that the fact that someone identified themselves with the alias “Jiménez” and not as alias “El Ñato” was insufficient reason for the authorities not to verify the individuals who underwent the process of demobilization in blocs with the greatest diligence and coherence in relation to the investigations. This is even more serious in the Court’s opinion, because, on December 16, 2009, the High Commission for the Social and Economic Reintegration of Insurgent Groups and Individuals of the Presidency of the Republic, which supervised the participation of Mr. Jiménez Ramírez in the demobilization process, reported, that “it was unaware of the investigations and proceedings that were underway against Mr. Jiménez Ramírez and Mr. Castaño Gil, and of any guilty verdicts that had possibly been handed down against these individuals.”236 In this regard, the Court considers that, during the demobilization process of alias “El Ñato,” the State did not act with the due diligence required to individualize him and identify him appropriately because, since he was implicated in the perpetration of a serious human rights violation, he should not have been a beneficiary of Decree 3360, under the terms of this norm.237 165. Furthermore, the Court observes that two individuals who provided relevant information for the investigation into the execution of Senator Cepeda Vargas have been extradited to the United States of America charged with drug trafficking. The evidence in the instant case reveals that individuals subject to the application of Law 795 of 2005 were extradited; namely, Hebert Veloza García, alias “H.H.,” and Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias “Don Berna,” both of them paramilitary leaders.238 Prior to his extradition, the former provided information on Edilson de Jesús Jiménez, alias “El Ñato”239 and, in September 2008, a warrant was issued for the latter’s arrest;240 the second, following his extradition, provided information that implicated other public officials in the execution. The State advised that it had adopted measures to ensure that the extraditions did not have a negative impact on the continuation of the proceedings that were underway in Colombia, and that it was taking measures and conducting judicial proceedings by video-conferences and virtual hearings. In particular, the State advised that, in order to obtain the versión libre statements, it had designed and implemented a system for transmitting the proceedings to special rooms for victims where the latter could intervene actively. 166. In this regard, the consistent case law of this Court should be recalled; it establishes that no law or provision of domestic legislation may prevent a State from complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations.241 A State cannot grant direct or indirect protection to those 236 Cf. Note OFI9-00130834/AUV 1130 of the High Commission for Social and Economic Reintegration of Insurgent Groups and Individuals of December 16, 2009, supra note 234, folio 8904. 237 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 293. 238 Cf. Note UNJP No. 006652 of June 25, 2009, from the Head of the National Unit of Prosecutors for Justice and Peace to the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation (evidence file XXI, helpful evidence presented by the State, folio 8929). 239 Cf. transcript of extracts of the versión libre statement received from Ever (or Hebert) Veloza García under Law 975 of 2005, supra note 162, folios 8152 to 8158. 240 Cf. newspaper article that appeared in “El Espectador” on September 23, 2008, entitled “Nueva vinculación por homicidio de Senador de la Unión Patriótica” [Another person associated with the murder of Patriotic Union Senator] (evidence file, tome V, attachment 37 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence of the representatives, folio 2337). 241 Cf. Loayza Tamayo. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42 para. 168; Castillo Páez. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 105; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 129; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 36, para. 125 and 182, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 22, para. 304.