includes […] the obligation to prevent human rights violations and, if they should occur, whether committed by State or non-State agents, […], this entails the obligations to investigate, to prosecute and to punish those responsible, and to make reparation to the victims. 777 B.5.2) Due diligence in the ordinary jurisdiction 497. The Court takes note that there were three stages in the investigations in this case as regards the activity of the authorities in charge of the investigations: a first stage (from 1985 to 2001) during which no investigations were conducted into the disappearances of the presumed victims or the torture of the survivors, except for the investigation carried out by the Special Investigative Court and the investigations and proceedings opened and ended in the military criminal jurisdiction into the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and the torture of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. A second stage tookplace from 2001 to 2010, during which, based on a complaint filed by the next of kin, an investigation was opened for the first time in the ordinary jurisdiction into the possible forced disappearance of the disappeared victims and, at this stage, the investigation was most active following the appointment of the Fourth Prosecutor delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice, Ángela María Buitrago (from 2005 to 2010). 778 It was in this period that most of the investigative measures were taken and the only proceedings that have been conducted to date against those possibly responsible for the events were instituted. Following this, there is a last period (from 2010 to date), during which the proceedings previously initiated were continued and also the investigations ordered in the context of those proceedings or because the Prosecution Service ordered certified copies of the case file. However, apart from the activities that form part of the proceedings themselves, as well as some forensic or genetic examinations or tests, the Court has no information that further investigative activities were conducted, even as a result of orders, exhortations and suggestions of the judicial authorities who delivered judgments in this case, such as the Superior Court of Bogota in its judgment against the Commander of the Cavalry School. Despite the absence of information on progress in the investigations by the Prosecution Service, the Court underlines that it is in this latest stage that all the criminal judicial decisions have been delivered concerning the events of this case (three first instance and two second instance judgments). 498. Regarding due diligence in the investigations opened in the ordinary jurisdiction, the Court stresses that former prosecutor Ángela María Buitrago testified before this Court that, when she took charge of the investigation, she: had to search for [the recordings that existed regarding the Palace of Justice] because, unfortunately, […] no videos were reported in [the] investigations [by the military jurisdiction and the criminal investigation]. In the investigation by the 30th Court there were more than 75 videos […], and when [… she] took over the investigation, these videos did not exist; subsequently, the recordings of communications between the soldiers were disappeared, and also the recordings that had been reported in one specific audio tape that […] mentioned those who disappeared from the Palace of Justice and [their] transfer to tactical units. 779 499. In this regard, this Court stresses the opinion of expert witness Michael Reed that, in the presence of acts that reveal the obstruction of the administration of justice, such as the 777 Expert opinion provided by affidavit on November 10, 2013, by Carlos Castresana Fernández (evidence file, folio 36269). 778 In this regard, the Court stresses the testimony of the prosecutor who was in charge of the case that: “the investigation into the remaining disappeared of the Palace of Justice was admitted [owing to] a 2001 complaint, [following which] an investigation was opened during which only six expansions of the complaint were received; investigations related to the case were incorporated from the judgment of the 30th Criminal Investigation Court based on the indictment of the guerrilla group and, at that point, the investigation was halted until 2005, [with the exception of] one action […] which consisted in the return of the remains of Ana Rosa Castiblanco.” Cf. Testimony of Ángela María Buitrago during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 779 Testimony of Ángela María Buitrago during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 175