- 59 - prosecuted for crimes that involve serious human rights by unduly applying legal mechanisms that undermine the pertinent international obligations. Consequently, the application of mechanisms such as extradition should not become a device that promotes, procures or ensures impunity.242 Accordingly, the State authorities must ensure that considerations relating to the attribution of serious human rights violations prevail in decisions concerning the application of these procedural mechanisms to anyone.243 It is opportune to observe that, following the said extraditions, this principle has been taken into account by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia in relation to a request for the extradition of a paramilitary in another case.244 In any case, the State is obliged to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that those involved in serious human rights violations, or who could possess relevant information in that regard, appear before the courts, or collaborate with them, when required. * * * 167. In short, despite the progress indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the Court considers that impunity prevails in the instant case, because the domestic procedures and proceedings have not been conducted within a reasonable time, and have not constituted effective remedies to ensure access to justice, to investigate and eventually punish all those who participated in committing the violations, including the possible participation of paramilitaries, and to provide integral reparation for the consequences of the violations. Based on the foregoing findings and on the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas and his next of kin. IV.5 RIGHTS TO THE PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY, FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, (ARTICLES 11, 13(1), 16 AND 23 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 168. The State acknowledged international responsibility for the violation of political rights, and the rights to honor and dignity and to freedom of expression (supra para. 13). According to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives, the dispute concerning the rights enshrined in Articles 13 and 23 of the Convention subsists with regard to the alleged violation of their social dimension. 242 The Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, considering paragraph 40. 243 Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 242, considering paragraphs 40 and 41. 244 In proceedings No. 30451, the Criminal Cassation Chamber issued a negative opinion on the request for extradition of a candidate for the benefits established in the Justice and Peace Law, based on the following arguments: (i) it violated the spirit of Law 975 of 2005; (ii) it ignored the rights of the victims; (iii) it harmed the functioning the administration of justice in Colombia, and (iv) the crimes for which the individual��s extradition was requested were less serious than the crimes he was accused of in Colombia.