proceedings in which Rito Alejo del Río Rojas was the accused, indicated that “the said homicide cannot be seen as an isolated act, but was an instrument towards a specific goal.”631 382. Consequently, as can be seen from the rulings of the different State authorities who were part of the investigation and the proceedings, and from the analysis of the probative elements, indications and circumstantial evidence taken into account by the Eighth Court in order to issue a legal ruling, it is not possible to conclude that the State considered the murder of Marino López to be an “isolated act.” To the contrary, the lines of investigation followed by the prosecution indicate that the criminal prosecution was focused, precisely, on determining whether this murder took place within the framework of actions designed to generate forced displacements, in the context of collaboration between paramilitary groups and high-ranking members of the Army present in the region. Consequently, the allegation of the representatives and the Commission that the State failed to investigate the murder of Marino López and the forced displacement taking into account the complex structure of persons involved in the planning and execution of the crime does not appear to be proved. It will be for the domestic authorities, naturally, to decide whether there are other levels of participation in the events and, in that case, to continue the investigations and try those responsible. 383. Furthermore, regardless of the duration of the two proceedings, a matter that will be analyzed in the following section, the Court notes that the investigations carried out by the different prosecutors who intervened in both proceedings never ceased, despite the difficulties that existed in the region at that time in Colombia. However, the Court could verify that there are three main reasons why, to date, no judgment has been delivered in proceeding No. 426. First, as emerges from the proven facts (supra paras. 145 and ff.), there were numerous disputes on competence among the prosecutors who intervened in the case. 632 Second, the proceeding was suspended for five years because, on March 9, 2004, the Prosecutor General decided that the investigation was precluded,633 and the case was only re-opened recently on March 11, 2009, by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice,634 because new facts and evidence had emerged. A third factor that has contributed to the failure to decide this proceeding is the refusal of the accused, Alejo del Río, to expand his preliminary statement in a hearing, which was suspended three time for this reason. 635 384. In relation to proceeding No. 2332, the Court has been able to verify that, since the 15th Prosecutor of Riosucio was assigned to intervene in 2003, the investigation activities have never 631 Cf. Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit, file 2009-063, defendant Rito Alejo del Río, judgment of August 23, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14800). 632 This situation was described in detail in the chapter on Proven Facts of this Judgment, and numerous documents provide evidence of the different disputes on competence that arose throughout this proceeding. Cf. Among others, Habeas corpus decision of the 31st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of August 4, 2001, case file No. 0004/2001 (evidence file, folio 1969); decision of the Prosecutor General of January 18, 2010, in case file No. 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43746); Report of the Secretariat of April 12, 2010, on the decision of the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in ordinary session of March 18, 2010, in case file No. 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43771); decision of the Prosecutor General of June 17, 2010, in case file No. 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43788); decision of the 20th Special Prosecutor UNDH-DIH of July 8, 2010, in case file No. 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43808); decision of the 20th Special Prosecutor UNDHDIH of May 18, 2011, in case file No. 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 44091). 633 Cf. Decision of the Prosecutor General of March 9, 2004, in case file 426, original volume No. 11 (evidence file, folio 42334). 634 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber. Judgment on appeal for review (Proceeding 30510) of March 11, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2143). 635 General del Río’s defense counsel pleaded the incompetence of the UNDH-DIH special prosecutors to hear the case, in all the hearings scheduled for him to expand his preliminary statement. Cf. Preliminary statement made by Rito Alejo del Río Rojas before the UNDH-DIH 20th Special Prosecutor on July 2, 2009 (evidence file, folio 42500); Hearing on expansion of the preliminary statement made by Rito Alejo del Río Rojas before the UNDH-DIH 20th Special Prosecutor (evidence file, folios 42515 and 42516); Hearing on expansion of the preliminary statement made by Rito Alejo del Río Rojas, on April 15, 2011, before the UNDH-DIH (evidence file, folio 43985). 123