12 by the American Convention on Human Rights, based on the arbitrary and illegal detention of the victims and their forced disappearance which continues to this day. Regarding Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the grave judicial delay, which entails the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the State acquiesces partially [in the three cases referred to above]. [Also, in the case of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, i]t admits the existence of a judicial delay in delivering judgment[, which] was the result of the shortcomings of the former penal system under which the proceedings were instituted[. However,] the Paraguayan procedural system does not permit prosecuting someone in absentia, [consequently], the case is at a standstill since two of the accused are deceased. […I]t is important to point out that, at all times – during this democratic era in the country – the next of kin of the victims of General Stroessner’s dictatorship have had access to justice, and no State body or agent has obstructed or interfered with their right to file criminal actions or the corresponding civil suits, and to avail themselves of judicial guarantees and judicial protection. In this regard, the victims’ next of kin and their representatives have not been prevented from having access to the ordinary civil jurisdiction to claim compensation for damages, or from access to other mechanisms, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, in order to solicit, independently and autonomously, the judicial actions and corresponding compensation, under Act No. 838/96. […] The victims’ next of kin have not used these judicial and administrative recourses to obtain fair compensation and this cannot be attributed to the State. In the José Mancuello case, the file […] has reached the final instance with previous rulings in first and second instance. […] This shows that Paraguayan justice delivered judgment in two instances and the decision of the final instance – the Supreme Court of Justice – is pending; the judicial decisions will thus be final and executed, thus complying with the obligation to investigate and punish unlawful acts. The State requests the Court to take this into consideration. […] [In the case of] Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba […], the final judgment in first instance has already been delivered [… and] the proceedings are still open with regard to the accused, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda, Sabino Augusto Montanaro and Eusebio Torres. The judgment in first instance convicted Pastor Coronel to 25 years’ imprisonment and the other co-accused to 12 years’ imprisonment which should have been served in 2002. In addition, it declared the civil responsibility of those convicted for the acts committed. […] With regard to Alfredo Stroessner, the beneficiary of political asylum in Brazil, an extradition request has been made and is being processed by the courts of the Federative Republic of Brazil, under A.I. No. 843 of June 5, 2001. Regarding the fugitive from justice, Sabino Augusto Montanaro, he has been granted asylum in Honduras, a country with which Paraguay has not signed an extradition treaty. […] […] It is worth pointing out […] that although the Paraguayan State has expressed its total willingness and has made significant efforts to resolve all the cases as appropriately as possible, it has paid special attention to the Goiburú case, in which the Paraguayan State has made the greatest efforts to repair the damage caused to the parties. […] For example, it has called the square located beside the Government Palace “PLAZA DE LOS DESAPARECIDOS,” in memory of the victims of forced disappearances during the dictatorship and other victims of grave human rights violations, and it is here that it has preserved the documents that compose the so-called “TERROR FILES.” [… Furthermore,] Congress adopted the law creating the Paraguayan Truth and Justice Commission on September 11, 2003. […] 42. In its final arguments, the Commission stated, inter alia, that: (a) The State had acknowledged that the obligation to respect the rights recognized in the Convention was not complied with during the 19541989 regime; nevertheless, it had presented arguments intended to attenuate its responsibility with regard to its obligation to safeguard these rights,;