out from 2020 onwards to ascertain Pedro Movilla’s whereabouts (supra paras. 102 and 103). However, it notes that the State accepts that it failed to draw up a plan to search for the victim until that year. Moreover, the facts do not suggest that a specific, comprehensive search plan has been implemented in the case, a measure deemed necessary by the State authorities themselves (supra para. 103).166 Therefore, the Court finds that the State’s responsibility for lack of diligence in undertaking search actions has not been rectified. 148. Lastly, the Court notes that the State pointed out that its acknowledgment of responsibility did not include the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Inspector General’s Office, nor the administrative proceedings (supra para. 19). In this regard, the Court recalls that it has observed, with specific reference to Colombia’s Inspector General’s Office, that disciplinary proceedings “may complement but not entirely replace the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of serious human rights violations.”167 Therefore, and since the State has acknowledged its responsibility for failing, until 2019, to undertake a diligent criminal investigation in order to punish those responsible for Pedro Movilla’s disappearance, a specific or differentiated examination of the actions of the Inspector General’s Office is not necessary. 168 As for the administrative proceedings, no arguments have been presented claiming that they have resulted in the violation of rights under the Convention, so an examination of those actions is not necessary either. B) Right to the truth B.1 Arguments of the Commission and the parties 149. The Commission referred to the right to the truth in the context of its arguments regarding the violation of the personal integrity of Mr. Movilla’s relatives, as well as those concerning the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. It maintained that the right to the truth “requires the procedural determination of the most complex historical truth possible, which includes the judicial determination of the patterns of joint performance of action and of all the persons that took part in such violations and their respective responsibilities,” and that the “absence of truth” affects the right to personal integrity. It also found that “the State did not make due efforts” to identify the connection of the disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio with his union and political activities, and with the intelligence notes. The Commission also observed “a lack of clarification of the grounds of such notes, and that few proceedings of investigation were carried out with this purpose.” 150. The representatives maintained that the State “has failed to guarantee Pedro Julio Movilla’s relatives access to any dimension of the truth having to do with protection.”169 They stressed that the investigation was initiated on the grounds of “kidnapping for ransom,” and that In this regard, expert Camacho observed that “parallel actions” were carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office and the UBPD, without “interagency coordination” or evidence of agreements between the two entities regarding their role in the search. The expert suggested that “partial [institutional] coordination actions” were barely getting under way, “with no coordinated, comprehensive search in place” or, even a “structured, coordinated and efficient strategy.” 167 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 203 and Case of the Displaced Afro-descendant Communities of the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, supra, para. 395. 168 Furthermore, the Commission, and the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, did not draw any distinction between the criminal and disciplinary proceedings in their arguments regarding the obligation to investigate, but instead focused on the State’s actions as a whole, citing acts in relation to both proceedings. For example, at the public hearing the representatives affirmed that closing down the investigation showed the shortcomings in the disciplinary proceedings. 169 The representatives argued that the right to the truth entails, firstly, the right of victims or their relatives to the clarification of the facts and the determination of responsibilities, and to the disclosure of the findings of the criminal and investigative proceedings; and, secondly, the right of victims’ relatives to know their fate or, if applicable, the whereabouts of their remains. 166 40