74 b) through both de facto and legal mechanisms, Perú obstructed the investigations that were initiated to determine the legality of the victims' detentions and to investigate the facts and identify those responsible for them. As part of those impunity structures, self-amnesty laws were enacted, which precluded the investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the facts denounced; c) as the Court itself has held in the Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, in cases involving extra-legal executions, the State must conduct, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation to guarantee the infringed right; d) although the victims' next of kin filed three petitions for habeas corpus immediately after the detention of the victims, the proceedings that were opened did not respect the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, nor were they effective under Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of said treaty, due to the non-observance of the due diligence duty by the intervening authorities. The judges hearing in the respective habeas corpus proceedings distorted the surveillance role that should be played by the Judiciary in a State in which the rule of law prevails, and failed in duly grounding their decisions. Therefore, the State is responsible for failing to guarantee the victims' next of kin right to an effective recourse substantiated by independent and impartial bodies, and, consequently, for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 7(6), 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims and their next of kin; e) criminal comparative law and international criminal law have developed several concepts regarding the different ways of participating in the commission of a crime, which shed light on how to interpret the compliance with the duty to investigate, prosecute and punish all forms of participation in the commission of crimes. The State has neither investigated nor submitted all persons involved in the commission, planning, instigation and concealment of the facts to domestic judicial authorities, nor those who ordered the crimes, facilitated them through cooperation or were accomplices. Those who, by virtue of a subordination relationship, knew or should have known that their subordinates were going to commit or had committed these crimes, and took no measures to stop them or punish them have not been tried either. The Court could ease the work of justice regarding the events at La Cantuta by further developing the degrees of criminal participation involved in the duty to investigate and punish all material and intellectual perpetrators in a case in which the state apparatus was used and arranged to commit egregious human rights violations; f) the State has not met the required due diligence standard in the criminal investigations of the instant case. Besides an unjustified delay in the accurate elucidation of the facts, the production of crucial evidence has also been subject to delay and negligence, as is true for the DNA analysis of the bone remains that were found during the early 90's; g) two reasons justify the lack of competence of the CSJM (Supreme Council of Military Justice) in the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators and instigators: firstly, the facts being tried were not "military crimes or offenses"