Galarcio (sister), Rita Candelaria Movilla Galarcio (sister), Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio (sister), Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla (nephew), Raúl Rafael Ramos Movilla (nephew), Ricardo Adolfo Ramos Movilla (nephew), Franklin Hander Movilla (nephew), Dominga Josefa Movilla Galarcio (niece), Iván Darío Vega Movilla (nephew), Nery del Carmen Vega Movilla (niece), Ana Karina Vega Movilla (niece), and María Isabel Carriazo de Román (mother-in-law). 194. According to the information available to this Court (supra para. 43), some of the persons mentioned have died. They are: María de Jesús Movilla Barrera, Florencia Movilla Galarcio, Rita Candelaria Movilla Galarcio, Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio, Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla, Raúl Rafael Ramos Movilla, Ricardo Adolfo Ramos Movilla, Franklin Hander Movilla, and María Isabel Carriazo de Román. B) Obligation to investigate to determine individual responsibilities 195. The Commission asked that the State be ordered to investigate the human rights violations that occurred in this case diligently, effectively and within a reasonable time, with the objective of “clarifying the facts completely, identifying all possible responsibilities and establishing the corresponding punishments.” 196. For their part, the representatives asked the Court to order the State “to conclude the criminal investigation diligently, effectively and within a reasonable time” in order to clarify the facts completely, identify all the persons responsible for the forced disappearance of Pedro Movilla, and establish the corresponding punishments. They also asked that, in carrying out the investigation, the authorities “acknowledge the context of persecution and forced disappearance in which the actions against political leaders and leftist militants were framed within the doctrine of ‘the enemy within’.” 197. The State rejected the representatives’ request that, in carrying out the criminal investigation, the authorities recognize the contextual elements mentioned, and reiterated its acknowledgment of responsibility until 2019. Moreover, it affirmed that, since 2019, the State had continued and intensified its investigative work, and reiterated its commitment to continue with the investigations. 198. The Court has established that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate Mr. Movilla’s disappearance (supra para. 168). Given that criminal proceedings are ongoing, and in keeping with its consistent case law, the Court orders that the State must continue, effectively and with due diligence, the ongoing investigations and the criminal proceedings, endeavoring to conclude them within a reasonable time. To do this, it must take into account a line of investigation that acknowledges the context of persecution and forced disappearance within which the events involving political leaders and leftist militants were framed as part of the concept of “the enemy within,” and open whatever lines of investigation are necessary to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the forced disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio within a reasonable time and for the purpose of establishing the truth of the facts. Due diligence in the investigation implies that all State authorities are obligated to collaborate in gathering evidence and provide the judicial body involved, the Prosecutor’s Office or other competent authority, with all the information it may require, and to abstain from actions that might obstruct the investigative process .222 199. Furthermore, the State must ensure that the following criteria are observed: Cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 103, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 277, and Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332, para. 203. 222 52