-108forum to examine, try and punish cases that involve human rights violations. The Court and other international bodies have ruled on this issue. The military justice system does not form part of the State’s Judiciary; those who take decisions are not judges from the legal profession and the Prosecutor General’s Office does not fulfill its accusatory role in the military justice system. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has ruled on the jurisdiction of the military courts to hear cases concerning human rights violations and, according to its rulings, the gravity of the violations committed in this case makes it inappropriate to hold the trials of the State agents involved in the military jurisdiction, and (e) The State has not adopted the necessary measures to recover all the bodies of the alleged victims. These violations make it impossible to respect society’s right to know the truth. 165. Arguments of the representatives (a) The State has failed to comply with its obligation to investigate and punish impartially and within a reasonable time, all those responsible for the events of Pueblo Bello, pursuant to Articles 8, 25 and 1 of the Convention; (b) Active protection of the rights embodied in the Convention falls within the State’s obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction and requires the State to adopt the necessary measures to punish human rights violations and prevent the violation of any of these rights by its own forces or by third parties acting with its acquiescence; (c) The mere existence of courts and laws designed to fulfill the obligations embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention is not sufficient; the obligations are affirmative and States must carry out an exhaustive investigation of all those responsible for human rights violations, both perpetrators and masterminds; (d) The State has deprived the alleged victims’ next of kin of access to a simple and prompt recourse. The ordinary jurisdiction has been extremely delayed and has shown that it has been ineffective in identifying, prosecuting and punishing all those responsible for the facts. The investigations have not been carried out genuinely in order to guarantee the alleged victims’ next of kin the right to know the whereabouts of their loved ones; (e) Regarding the proceedings before ordinary justice: i. Only five people have been convicted. These results are insufficient, ineffective and inadequate in light of the State’s obligations; ii. The judgment delivered by the Tribunal Nacional on December 30, 1997 underscored the flaws in the investigation and, hence, declared part of it null. That finding of the domestic judicial authorities illustrates the inefficiency and lack of seriousness with which the domestic investigations were carried out. Despite the order to re-open the investigations, the domestic jurisdiction only did this two years after that decision;