15 the benefits of Law 975 of 2005; they also noted that "none of the people who rendered the 1968 statements […] confessed to participating in La Rochela Massacre”. 58. The Commission took note "with satisfaction of the statements made in good faith by the State," but it considered it necessary that the State present, in a systemized manner, the information related to the investigations in this case, the methods used and the results obtained. Furthermore, it stated that it was essential to be aware of the legal framework of the investigations being conducted, the actions that still take place under military jurisdiction and the legal decisions that are final in nature, issued as part of the proceeding. In its observations of June 28, 2010, the Commission manifested that “the legal proceedings continue to be an insufficient means of guaranteeing the effective access to justice for the victims.” In addition, it noted that a conflict exists between the parties regarding the application of the Justice and Peace Law and the effects thereof, and it emphasized that, “it is vital that the legal framework, and its interpretation by the Constitutional Court, be fully observed by the bodies in charge of its implementation […] so that the legal benefits granted to the demobilized individuals do not to merely constitute legal aid, but rather comply with the genuine objective of offering an incentive for peace, the search for truth and the due reparation of the victims affected by the conflict.” 59. Upon ordering the reparation measure on the obligation to investigate, the Court considered the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection in the instant case, based on, inter alia: the lack of due diligence in the investigation; the threats made to judges, witnesses and relatives; the obstacles and obstructions to the execution the investigation, as well as the unjustified delays in the proceedings;10 the trial of an army official on the charge of murder before a military criminal jurisdiction in violation of the principle of competent, independent and impartial court [juez natural].11 60. The information presented to the Court during the procedure to monitor compliance makes it possible to verify that, following the delivery of the Judgment some progress has been made in the investigation before the criminal courts. In its Judgment of May 11, 2007, the Court noted, inter alia, that during 18 years of investigations into the facts of the massacre, only six members of the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group, one leader of the ACDEGAM paramilitary group and one soldier (who was a sergeant) have been convicted. Furthermore, the sergeant was convicted of concealment.12 According to information submitted to the Court, between June 2007 and April 2010, the following results and proceedings were maintained: a) Two persons were sentenced to 40 years imprisonment; b) Charges were brought against 6 individuals; c) Two decisions were issued ordering the association of 4 persons with the investigation (two former paramilitary members and two "State agents"); d) The legal situation of three individuals (two former paramilitary officers and one “State agent”) was decided and they were remanded in custody for multiple aggravated homicides and conspiracy to commit a crime. There is no record proving that the detention was carried out; e) It was decided to continue with the investigation against one “former State agent” (former Lieutenant Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz); an arrest warrant was issued against him and a public hearing was held in the trial proceedings 10 11 12 See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 288. See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 204. See Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 159.