-121- 208. Likewise, in Kaya v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the violation of a right protected by the Convention could not be remedied exclusively by the establishment of civil responsibility and the corresponding award of compensation to the relatives of the victims.242 209. In this case, the claims were filed starting in 2000 and there is no evidence that any of the proceedings have culminated with judgments, agreements or abandonment of the action. In other words, proceedings have been filed by the next of kin of the persons disappeared and deprived of life, 11 or 12 years after the acts occurred (a lapse of time that cannot be attributed to the State); therefore, it is irrelevant to examine the reasonableness of the time in relation to the time when the facts occurred. Also, in cases of human rights violations, the State has the obligation to make reparation, so that although the victims or their next of kin should have ample opportunity to seek just compensation, this obligation cannot rest exclusively on their procedural initiative or on the contribution of probative elements by private individuals. Thus, in the terms of the obligation to provide reparation that arises from a violation of the Convention (infra paras. 227 to 229), the administrative-law proceedings do not constitute per se an effective and adequate recourse to repair that violation comprehensively. 210. Consequently, since these administrative-law proceedings are still being processed and have not produced concrete results at the date this judgment is delivered, the Court considers it irrelevant, in the circumstances of the instant case, to examine more extensively the scope and characteristics of the administrative-law jurisdiction, as a useful and effective recourse for the effects of a case of this nature, or to assess its application in this case. * * * 211. Having examined each of the proceedings opened at the domestic level in relation to the events of Pueblo Bello, as well as the general interaction of these proceedings in the context of the impunity that reigned during the period in which they were applied, the Court concludes that the series of failures to comply with the established protection and investigation obligations have contributed to the impunity of most of those responsible for the violations committed. The military command could not have been unaware of an attack on the civilian population of the proportions underscored in this case, in a zone inhabited by paramilitary groups and where such groups were active. Although some of the members of the paramilitary group have been convicted, generalized impunity subsists in this case, since the whole truth about the facts has not been determined and all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts have not been identified. Moreover, it is relevant that most of the members of the paramilitary group convicted are not serving their sentences because the arrest warrants against them have not been executed. 212. The Court concludes that the domestic procedures and proceedings have not constituted, either individually or as a whole, effective recourses to guarantee access to justice, determination of the whereabouts of the disappeared, the whole truth about the facts, the investigation and sanction of those responsible, and reparation 242 Cf. European Court of Human Rights. Kaya v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, § 105.