131. Taking into account the activities of Mrs. Gutierrez described previously (see supra paras. 39-40) related to her work on irregular adoptions, the Commission recalls the State's obligations in terms of due diligence in investigations of violations of human rights in detriment of human rights defenders. Specifically, the Commission notes that the investigating authority must consider the activity of the assaulted person in order to identify the interests that could have been affected and thus establish lines of inquiry and hypotheses about the crime.183 132. The IACHR has emphasized that impunity in these cases is the factor that greatly increases the risk of the defenders of human rights, as it the puts them in a situation of helplessness and vulnerability. The Commission also reiterates that in the case of possible effects against women human rights defenders, States have the reinforced duty to pursue an investigation with full diligence and without delay; taking into account the specific risks women defenders face in terms of violations to their human rights in the context of the facts.184 133. Additionally, the Court has also highlighted the importance of identifying "patterns of joint action and all those who, in different ways, participated in the said violations and their corresponding responsibilities,"185 and that it is essential to analyze the information on the power structures "that permitted, designed, masterminded and perpetrated it, as well as the individuals or groups who had interests in or would benefit from the crime (beneficiaries)." As the Court has held, this, in turn, can lead to the generation of theories and lines of investigation.186 134. The IACHR observes that from the outset of the investigation logical lines of inquiry based on available information were not pursued. It should be mentioned that at least two hypotheses arose that suggested a possible link between Ms. Gutiérrez's disappearance and state actors. 135. To begin with, the Commission points out Ms. Gutiérrez's active and visible participation in an investigation into illegal adoptions and children's rights in Guatemala during the armed conflict, which apparently implicated high-ranking state officials. That activity was confirmed, as the established facts show, by statements, newspaper articles, and press releases by human rights organizations. In that regard, the Commission found no mention in the record of any investigations to corroborate, for instance, the contents of Ms. Gutiérrez's report on illegal adoptions, the interests that might have been harmed by that report's publication, and individuals or groups possibly linked to such interests. 136. Second, the IACHR notes Ms. Gutiérrez's reported involvement during the armed conflict with the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), her supposed inclusion as a "suspected subversive" in a military intelligence database, the reported forced disappearance of her brother and sister—said to have belonged to the Guerrilla Army of the Poor and the People in Arms Organization, respectively—during that time, and her support for the Union of the Democratic Left, a political party. These things were highlighted by Ms. Gutiérrez's relatives and can be found in newspaper articles and press releases by human rights organizations. There is nothing in the record to suggest that what happened to Ms. Gutiérrez's siblings was looked into in any detail or, based on that information, that possible links were explored between what befell them and Ms. Gutiérrez's disappearance. 137. In spite of the aforementioned evidence, which was present from the start of the investigation and was reiterated by relatives, colleagues, and organizations in the course of it, the 183 IACHR, Report No. 56/12, Merits (Florentín Gudiel Ramos, Makrina Gudiel Álvarez et al.), Guatemala, March 21, 2012, par. 126. See, also, IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, par. 236 184 IACHR, Report No. 86/13, Casos 12.595, 12.596 y 12.621, Merits, Ana Teresa Yarce and others (Comuna 13), Colombia, November 4, 2013, par. 347. 185 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 219; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 101. 186 I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 119. 28