case in order to obtain a better or more effective outcome, but rather, to verify whether or not the steps that were effectively taken domestically violated the international obligations of the State.614 342. In this respect, the State has to demonstrate that it has conducted an immediate, exhaustive, serious, and impartial investigation,615 which must be aimed at exploring all possible lines of inquiry to identify the perpetrators of the crime with a view to their subsequent prosecution and punishment.616 The State can be held accountable for failing to “order, practice, or evaluate evidence” that may be critical to solving a case.617 In the case of human rights defenders, the IACHR has deemed that as part of the due diligence required when conducting the investigation, the investigative authority must take into account the activities of the aggrieved human rights defender in order to identify what interests may have been harmed in the exercise of such activities and thus establish lines of inquiry and theories about the crime.618 343. In the instant case, the IACHR has learned of more than 15 investigations carried out by the National Unit for Human Rights and delegated offices of the prosecutor of the acts described herein. This notwithstanding, the Commission has no detailed information about any investigation, or about the inquiries carried out. 344. Based on the documents presented, the Commission highlights that to date none of the investigations have been able to shed light on the facts. Furthermore, the perpetrators have never been identified or punished. The Commission takes note that more than half of the aforementioned investigations have been suspended or shelved due to the statute of limitations lapsing, an absence of conducts defined as crimes, or the impossibility of identifying the perpetrators. Another significant number are in the preliminary stages. 345. The Commission notes that in addition to the criminal cases, two disciplinary investigations were initiated in order to determine potential liability on the part of officials of the State (agents from the DAS, the National Police, or the National Army). The Commission has pointed out repeatedly, however, that disciplinary proceedings are not sufficient for prosecuting, punishing, and redressing the consequences of human rights violations.619 346. The Court has likewise noted that an investigation in the disciplinary jurisdiction “tends to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials, so that, in cases of grave human rights violations, it can complement but not substitute completely the function of the criminal jurisdiction.”620 In the instant case, however, this did not happen inasmuch as both investigations were shelved due to insufficient grounds to proceed. Thus, these investigations were not effective either for determining who was responsible for the acts described above. 347. In light of the foregoing, the Commission deems that the State has not conducted serious, diligent, and exhaustive investigations aimed at discovering the truth about these acts, identifying the perpetrators, or uncovering the sources of risk that CAJAR faced which have taken into account the context or sought to impose the respective punishments. 2. Investigations into surveillance activities and interception of communications I/A Court H.R. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, paragraph 80. 615 IACHR, Report on the Merits, No. 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella et al. (Argentina), November 18, 1997, paragraph 412. 616 IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 25/09 (Sebastião Camargo Filho), Brazil, March 19, 2009, paragraph 109. See also: IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 41. 617 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 230. See also, IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 41. 618 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, paragraph 236. 619 IACHR, Report No. 74/07, Petition 1136-03, Admissibility, José Antonio Romero Cruz et al., Colombia, October 15, 2007, paragraph 34; and Report No. 31/11, Case No. 12.416, Merits, Massacre of Santo Domingo, Colombia, March 24, 2011, paragraph 157. 620 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 204. 614 67