110 “some of them, who were well-known drug-traffickers with connections to the paramilitary groups, had been acquitted during the investigation”; (d) The first judgment delivered in these criminal proceedings was on November 14, 2003; in other words, six years after the events occurred in La Granja. However, it was revoked by the Antioquia Superior Court on July 12, 2004; (e) A new judgment was delivered on July 8, 2005, almost nine years after the events had occurred; and Decree 128 of 2003 and Act 975 of 2005 contribute to the fact that the only judgment delivered in the La Granja case cannot be executed, because the domestic legal framework offers the authors of these grave human rights violations the possibility of a reduced sentence, and provides that those who have intervened in these facts and who have not yet been individualized are not obliged to plead guilty before the Colombian authorities. (g) ii) Concerning the events that occurred in El Aro (a) Regarding the investigation of the facts, there are three elements that show that these criminal proceedings are not complying with the minimum requirements to consider that the procedural guarantees of the alleged victims have been respected: (a) not one member of the National Army has been included in the investigation; (b) impunity reigns, and (c) seven years have elapsed since the armed incursion in El Aro, a more than reasonable time for the delivery of a final judgment encompassing all those responsible for all the acts perpetrated; (b) Only three civilians have been convicted for the many acts that occurred in this district, in which approximately 200 men took part; (c) The judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Antioquia Circuit of April 22, 2002, did not include all the crimes committed during the incursion in El Aro; and (d) A financial conciliation process was carried out in several of the administrative proceedings, but as yet no payments have been made. The State’s arguments 282. The State alleged that it had not violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, because: i) Concerning the recourses available in the domestic sphere (a) Colombia has a genuine system for the protection of fundamental rights, with the constitutional mechanisms that comprise the judicial protection system, including the Ombudsman’s Office, which, although it is not a judicial mechanism, is an institution for the protection of these rights. The constitutional mechanisms that comprise the system for the judicial protection of fundamental rights in Colombia are: habeas corpus; the “tutela” action (which is the maximum remedy of “amparo” [protection of