56 171. Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor's Office has not taken into account the context of the facts, their complexity, or the special position of those people who could have been responsible within the state structure during that time. Therefore, the criminal cas file neither shows that the prosecuting authority had followed clear and logical lines of investigation that would have taken into account those elements. In this respect, as it has been already mentioned in this Judgment (supra para. 166), in regard to acts like the ones argued in the instant case, given the context and their complexity, it is reasonable to consider that there are different degrees of responsibility at different levels of criminal liability. The investigation does not reflect any of the above levels. In this sense, the Court considers that the State has not complied with this obligation in a diligent manner. 172. The Court considers that, in addition, another consequence of the lack of diligence in the instant case is that, as time goes by, the possibility of collecting and presenting evidence in order to shed light on the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities is unduly limited, thus the State fosters impunity. The Tribunal has defined [impunity] as an overall lack of investigation, persecution, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.214 173. In that respect, it is appropriate to indicate that the investigation into the facts of the instant case cannot be considered as a mere process of private interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims, his next of kin, or of the private provision of evidence.215 Furthermore, the Court considers that the State bodies responsible for an investigation into the forced disappearance of persons, the purpose of which is to determine their whereabouts and shed light on what happened, must identify those responsible and decide their possible punishment, should perform their task diligently and exhaustively. The juridical rights to which the investigation relates oblige [the State] to redouble efforts to ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to comply with this objective. The negligent action or failure to act by State bodies is not compatible with the obligations arising from the American Convention, especially when an essential human right is involved.216 174. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the State has not conducted a serious investigation into the facts related to the arrests and subsequent forced disappearances of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña, and that the State unduly placed the evidentiary burden on the private party, in the instant case, Rebeca Ibsen Cárdenas as plaintiff and relative of the victims. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B.3. Undue delay and hindering of the course of the proceeding 214 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23. para. 173; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 234, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 130, note 184. 215 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 177; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 139, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 192. 216 This has been stablished by the Court, for example, when dealing when another kind of human rights violations. Cf. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 202, para. 130.