Lanao and Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, 20 and also only with regard to Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. c. With regard to the obligation to investigate: i. By omission: owing to “the protracted delay in the investigations,” in violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino, José Vicente Rubiano Galvis and Orlando Quijano, as well as in relation to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture to the detriment of the first two and of Article 6(3) of the Inter-American Convention against Torture to the detriment of the last two. 21 ii. By omission: owing to “the protracted delay in the investigations,” 22 in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Irma Franco Pineda, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and Gloria Anzola de Lanao, as well as their respective next of kin and the next of kin of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. It also acknowledged these violations with regard to Articles I(a), I(b) and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance to the detriment of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda. In addition, with the exception of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, this acknowledgement by the State was made owing to “errors in the investigations conducted in this case, related to the following aspects: (i) the handling of the corpses; (ii) the lack or rigor in the protection and inspection of the scene of the events; (iii) improper handling of the evidence collected, and (iv) the methods used were inappropriate to maintain the chain of custody.” Regarding Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, the State acknowledged these last three irregularities, but not those relating to the “handling of the corpses.” iii. By omission: owing to the violation of Articles 3, 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres “due to the State’s unjustified delay in identifying and returning her remains.” Colombia indicated that this acknowledgement “did not imply that it accepted that the wrongful act of forced disappearance of persons had been perpetrated against this victim.” However, it acknowledged that “the uncertainty […] during all the time it took to identify her remains deprived her of her juridical personality.” 20 The State acknowledged the said violations to the detriment of the next of kin indicated by the Commission and the representatives, with the exception of Paola Fernanda Guarín Muñoz, niece of Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, and Esmeralda Cubillos Bedoya, alleged daughter of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, because, according to the State, their status as victims of the facts has not been proved. 21 The State clarified that its obligation to investigate the cases of these victims “is not related to the obligations to investigate and to punish established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention [against] Torture, but rather to paragraph 3 of Article 6 of that Convention, because the State considers that the complaints filed by the victims describe acts that are less severe than torture, but that do warrant a prompt and effective investigation.” 22 Regarding those who disappeared and the presumed victims of detention and torture, the State acknowledged that “the protracted delay in the investigations […] constituted a violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection,” “in similar terms to the conclusions of the […[ Commission,” because the judicial authorities failed to respect the guarantee of a reasonable time, so that the proceedings have not been effective, since they have not complied with the purpose for which they were instituted. 11