5 considerable number of families, tearing apart the fabric of the community and caring bonds that had been forged across the rural setting of the village. The petitioners maintained that the victims’ and family members’ right to humane treatment was infringed as a result of the overt involvement of the State in criminal actions along side the paramilitary structures, the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations and the failure to punish those responsible. They also claimed that accusing the victims of being members of the guerrilla forces as justification of the actions of paramilitary by chief Ramón Isaza, causes pain and suffering for the family members of the victims. 22. As for the right to a fair trail and judicial protection, the petitioners alleged that the State has breached its duty to establish the truth about these incidents by investigating the violations committed, identifying and punishing all those responsible and providing reparation to the family members of the victims. They contended that the criminal proceeding fails to abide by the due process guarantee of a reasonable period of time, arguing that even though the crimes were reported in a timely fashion, the investigation was not formally opened until May 2, 2000. They also noted that only two individuals have been tried and, as yet, have not been criminally punished. They claimed that despite evidence proving involvement of the Magdalena Medio Self-Defense Forces in these crimes and collusion of members of the Armed Forces in the planning and execution thereof, no serious and thorough investigation into these schemes of collusion between the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio and the Armed Forces have been conducted. 23. The petitioners further contended that in the instant case there has been a string of shortcomings, failures and irregularities, such as the fact that much of the evidence collected linking members of the military forces to the crimes was not handed over to the Office of the Attorney General; many pieces of evidence requested by the attorneys for the vicitms’ families, as civil third parties to the case, and ordered by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney aimed at proving the link between the Military Forces and the members of the paramilitary group in Magdalena Medio, were not collected; the criminal case was reassigned to four different prosecutors, thus disrupting continuity in the investigation; there were long periods of inactivity; and an investigation was opened into the crimes of simple abduction and homicide instead of the crime of forced disappearance. 24. With regard to the investigation of paramilitary leader Ramón Isaza, the petitioners noted that an arrest warrant was issued for him in May 2000, almost four years after the events took place. They contended that even though statements had been made to the media prior to that date, the State did not take any measures to apprehend him and that as of the present time, the proceedings have not reached the trial stage. The petitioners asserted that Ramón Isaza demobilized on February 7, 2006, under the State-instituted peace process and, consequently, the criminal investigation was transferred from the ordinary civilian justice system to the special jurisdiction known as the “Justice and Peace” courts. They claimed that sentences in this jurisdiction are very lenient. They also contended that even though the statements of Ramón Isaza implicate members of the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio for colluding with agents of the Armed Forces, including an Army commanding officer handing over an alleged list to a member of the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio, none of these statements, which were given in the context of the Justice and Peace Law have been accurately and fully clarified. Consequently, the petitioners argued that in the absence of a clear, serious and complete confession, it is unacceptable that Ramón Isaza is enjoying legal benefits under Law 975 of 2005. 25. As to the investigation of Major Guzmán, the petitioners argued that it was established during the first stages of the investigation that he is criminally responsible inasmuch as he was the Commanding Officer of the FTA at the time of the events at issue. Nonetheless, they contended, he