82 the ordering of an extradition request and its processing was pending, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the abovementioned court on March 2, 2001, that, albeit “it had not signed any extradition treaties with Honduras, […] based on the rules of international reciprocity and courtesy, it is possible to process an extradition request in the absence of signed treaties” (supra paras. 61(71) to 61(73)). 125. No extradition procedures were instituted during the criminal proceedings opened in the case of Carlos José Mancuello. 126. Regarding the case of the Ramírez Villalba brothers, following some communications between the Fourth Criminal Court of First Instance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the preventive detention for the purpose of extradition of the accused Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda on August 4, 1993. As of that date, there is no evidence of any other measures until, on June 5, 2001, the Court decided “to request the extradition of the defendant Alfredo Stroessner” through the Supreme Court of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The documentation provided to this Court does not show whether the letters rogatory relating to extradition were effectively forwarded to the Brazilian authorities or, if so, the actual status of the procedure in Brazil. Paraguay did not forward any further information in this respect, despite having been asked to provide it as helpful evidence. Nevertheless, in its answer to the application, the State indicated that, regarding “Alfredo Stroessner, beneficiary of political asylum in Brazil, an extradition request is being processed before the courts of the Federative Republic of Brazil.” Regarding Sabino Augusto Montanaro, there is no evidence that the order of detention issued against him has been executed, or that his extradition has actually been requested of Honduras by the Paraguayan judicial authorities in the context of these criminal proceedings. 127. This means that, in addition to the lack of reasons explaining the delay of the judicial authorities in issuing orders of preventive detention for the purpose of extradition, or in requesting the extradition itself, the absence of these persons from the State that aspires to prosecute them, owing to the failure to execute their extradition, constitutes a serious obstacle for the effectiveness of the proceedings and goes a long way towards determining the impunity of the facts (supra para. 119). On the one hand, there is the declaration of contempt of court and order of preventive detention of the accused, Sabino Augusto Montanaro, which was not accompanied by an extradition request formulated by the Paraguayan judicial authorities before the Republic of Honduras. On the other hand, there is no evidence that a request for the extradition of Alfredo Stroessner was effectively presented to the Federative Republic of Brazil or has been advanced by subsequent actions of Paraguay’s diplomatic or judicial authorities. The two defendants have been granted political asylum in these countries. At the time this judgment is delivered, the information provided to the case file does not reveal actions of the Paraguayan judicial authorities designed to formulate other extradition requests; furthermore, there is no evidence of whether there are or have been investigations or criminal proceedings opened against these persons in Honduras or Brazil. 128. As indicated above (supra para. 93), the facts of this case have violated nonderogable provisions of international law (jus cogens), in particular the prohibition of torture and forced disappearance of persons. These offenses are included among the conducts deemed to harm essential values and rights of the international community and entail the activation of national and international measures, instruments and mechanisms to ensure their effective prosecution and the sanction of the authors, so