rights. Indeed, the Commission finds that those omissions favored the continued disappearance of Mr. Omeara Miraval and, ultimately, his execution. 158. In addition to disclosing an infringement of the duty to ensure rights, the aforementioned omissions are particularly significant insofar as the State's involvement in the disappearance and later execution is concerned, bearing in mind that said inaction belonged to UNASE, the unit with which Fabiola Álvarez said she filed her complaint and which was alleged to be a death squad that acted in coordination with the very illegal armed group to which the attack on Guillermo Omeara’s was attributed. 159. Third, the Commission finds that the testimony of Juan Francisco Prada, a member of the paramilitary group, indicates that one of those involved in the disappearance and execution of Guillermo Omeara was the man known by the alias “el ave” (cf. supra par. 78). According to Juan Francisco Parra that same person took part in the attack on Héctor Álvarez, who revealed that the truck in which Mr. Omeara Miraval disappeared belonged to Mr. Prada (cf. supra par. 84). 160. The Commission finds that the same person's involvement in both incidents strengthens the petitioners' contention that the acts of violence were interconnected. Specifically they argued that the attack on Héctor Álvarez was designed to silence the bid to obtain justice for the disappearance and execution of Guillermo Omeara, and that what happened to Guillermo Omeara was aimed at delaying his investigations to identify the perpetrators of the attack on Noel Emiro Omeara, in which evidence has been presented of the involvement of state agents (cf. supra par. 60). 161. Faced with this accumulation of circumstantial evidence, the Commission notes that the State said that the involvement of agents of the State has not been proved based on the findings of the investigations. In that regard, the Commission finds that the investigation of Major Lázaro Vergel in relation to this fact was precluded in the regular courts and set aside in disciplinary proceedings. However, the State has not provided an explanation or evidence supporting the decisions on the basis of which it was opted not to include Major Lázaro Vergel in the criminal investigation. Likewise, the State has not furnished an explanation of the reason not to investigate the possible activities of other state agents, such as “Rambo,” who was said in a statement to be a member of the UNASE, was allegedly involved in the events connected with the attack on Noel Emiro Omeara, and reputedly later visited the family after Guillermo Omeara's disappearance was reported. 162. With respect to the investigation in the military jurisdiction, although the State has provided information about inquiries aimed at determining whether or not army, police, and DAS personnel, as well as members of the UNASE, were involved, the Commission finds that said jurisdiction does not satisfy the guarantees of independence and impartiality that would allow it to be considered a valid means of clarification of the facts under the Convention (cf. infra pars. 198-201). 163. In conclusion, the Commission finds that the State's mere mention of the sense of the decisions that were adopted in the ordinary courts and disciplinary proceedings and its denial of any involvement of its agents in the events are not sufficient to disprove the findings made with regard to the involvement of the illegal armed group led by members of the Prada family in the events, for which there is consistent information to suggest that it acted in coordination with, or with the acquiescence of, state agents. That circumstantial evidence of responsibility is further strengthened, moreover, when one considers the inaction of the UNASE rather than launch an immediate search upon learning of the disappearance, that said unit was referred to by several individuals as a death squad that acted in connivance with the paramilitary group, and that it has not been effectively investigated by the State. The Commission also finds the foregoing to be consistent with the petitioners' submissions that the purpose of the disappearance was to silence Guillermo Omeara on account of his efforts to investigate the attack on Noel Emiro Omeara, in which, as is noted above, State agents were involved whom, it may be reasonably concluded, would have had an interest in their responsibility not coming to light. In spite of the circumstantial evidence that all three incidents were interconnected, the State has failed to investigate that connection properly. 39