emphasizes the importance of policies designed to satisfy the right to the truth regarding serious human rights violations. 162. However, the observance of the right to the truth must be analyzed in this specific case. Colombia’s position is contradictory. While it acknowledged that the right to the truth had been violated “in part,” it argued that it was not appropriate for this Court to declare it had been (supra para. 153). The fact is that the State has accepted that, until 2019, it failed to conduct diligent investigation and search actions in relation to Pedro Movilla’s disappearance. In this judgment, moreover, the Court has determined that the shortcomings in the search for the victim have not been rectified (supra para. 147). Therefore, the State’s arguments are insufficient to exempt Colombia from its responsibility, in the specific case, with respect to the right to the truth. Indeed, apart from Colombia’s general institutional efforts, which this Court does not deny, the State acknowledges, and it is clear from the facts, that it has not been possible to determine the truth of what happened. 163. Furthermore, the observations of expert Yepes in this case are important. He stated that, in contexts in which the doctrine of national security is applied, where social sectors such as members of trade unions and political militants are targeted and security agencies are prone to “highly irregular” actions, it is necessary to establish whether “intelligence surveillance” was carried out on a disappeared person who belonged to the persecuted social sector, because only in this way “is it possible establish a rational inference that the forced disappearance was related to the victim’s political or trade union activity or position.” The expert explained that a common weakness in the investigation of cases of possible forced disappearances is “trying to find direct evidence of the deprivation of liberty, something that [...] in contexts of mass disappearances, is unlikely to help arrive at the truth.” He added that this means that prior acts, such as surveillance and intelligence actions, are not investigated, or result in merely formal requests to the entities possibly involved in the disappearance. 164. This means that the proper investigation of intelligence actions was an indicator of due diligence in internal investigations and that, for this purpose, the collaboration of the institutions involved was essential - particularly, but not exclusively, the National Army. 165. The facts of the case show that, on June 28 and July 3, 1993, the Directorate of Military Intelligence furnished the PGN with documents containing notes on Pedro Movilla (supra para. 84). Subsequently, on September 3 and October 1, 1999, an intelligence officer and a former intelligence officer answered PGN questionnaires about the notes found, providing general explanations of how the Military Intelligence Directorate collected information, but without giving the specific reason it had recorded information about Pedro Movilla (supra para. 88). On June 8, 2012, the intelligence directorates of the National Police and the Military Police were asked to report whether they had records of anyone identifying himself with the number 88 and the alias “Milton” between 1992 and 1994. The replies, from June 11 and August 4 of that year, were negative (supra para. 98). Between March 2013 and February 2014, the Ministry of National Defense was asked for a copy of any reports, notes or data concerning Pedro Movilla (supra para. 99). A statement was also taken from the person who was Director of Intelligence between 1993 and 1994. Among other things, he mentioned that the State agencies should have in their possession more documentation concerning “Alias ‘Milton.’” On August 5, 2016, the Army was asked to hand over its intelligence reports on Pedro Movilla to the Prosecutor’s Office.189 Following another request on January 29, 2018 190, on March 20 and April 3, 2018, the Military Intelligence Combat Support Command of the National Army reported that it had no information 190 4863). Cf. FGN, Communication of January 29, 2018 (evidence file, Annex 22 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 44