80 and lower positions. However, as has been indicated, for different reasons the results of the proceedings have been very limited as regards the five persons who were convicted and, of these, those who have served their sentences, since several of the defendants died during the proceedings. The result of the State’s lack of due diligence is that none of the three criminal proceedings has concluded and determined the corresponding criminal responsibilities. The absence of two of the principal accused, the former dictator, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda, and the former Minister of the Interior, Sabino Augusto Montanaro, granted asylum in Brazil and Honduras, respectively, and declared “in contempt of court,” added to the failure to implement an extradition request for the former go a long way to determining the impunity of the facts. Owing to its relevance, this will be examined more thoroughly below (infra paras. 123 to 132). 120. Regarding the existence of an effective recourse to repair the consequences of the violations committed, the State argued that “the victims’ next of kin have had [full] access to justice, [both to] the ordinary civil jurisdiction to claim compensation for damages, and [to] the Ombudsman’s Office to request, independently and autonomously, the judicial actions and corresponding compensation under Act No. 836/96 [(sic). Despite this, the next of kin have not used these judicial or administrative recourses, which cannot be attributed to the State.” Although this assertion has an impact on reparations, the Court considers it must examine it together with the merits of the case, since the effectiveness of domestic remedies must be assessed integrally, taking into account whether, in the specific case, there were domestic mechanisms that ensured real access to justice to claim reparation for the violation. 121. In other cases, the Court has taken into account the results achieved in administrative or other proceedings conducted at the domestic level, when assessing the effectiveness of the remedies and even when establishing reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Thus, in the Mapiripán Massacre” case, the Court considered that the integral reparation of the violation of a right protected by the Convention cannot be reduced to the payment of compensation to the victim’s next of kin. Therefore, it took into account some of the results achieved in the administrative-law proceedings filed by the next of kin of the victims in that case, considering that the compensation established by these instances for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage could be understood to be included within the broadest concepts of reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Consequently, the Court stated that those results could be considered when establishing the pertinent reparations, “provided that what was decided in those proceedings is now res judicata and that it is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.”85 122. The Court considers that the State’s responsibility for not having repaired the consequences of the violations in this case is not annulled or diminished by the fact that the victims’ next of kin have not attempted to use the civil or administrative mechanisms indicated by the State. The obligation to repair damage is a legal obligation of the State that should not depend exclusively on the procedural activities of the victims. In two of the criminal proceedings that were filed in the civil jurisdiction, the civil responsibility of some of those convicted was declared, although there is no evidence that the civil plaintiffs in the criminal instance have tried to have 85 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 339; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 5, para. 206, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 214.