51 remain unpunished.” The representatives204 maintained that “the [S]tate has totally failed to comply with the duty of due diligence in the investigations.”205 Both argued that Colombia violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article1(1) therein. Also, that in the investigation of the facts related to Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval (hereinafter also "investigation into Omeara Miraval"), it violated Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance. The State affirmed that “the lack of diligence during some periods in the progress of the internal investigations has resulted in the denial of justice.” However, as already indicated, it acknowledged its responsibility in a "partial" way. It asked the Court to accept its acknowledgement in such terms. 205. The Court will examine the arguments of the Commission and the parties.206 To this end, it will proceed in the following order: (A) Clarifications on the scope of the partial acknowledgment of responsibility; (B) Disputed aspects regarding the investigation of the facts; (C) Right to the Truth in relation to the fate of Mr. Omeara Miraval, and (D) Conclusion. A. Clarifications on the scope of the partial acknowledgement of responsibility 206. As previously indicated, the dispute has ceased regarding the State, as it acknowledged: (a) Regarding the investigation of what happened to Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal (hereinafter, “investigation into Omeara Carrascal”), “[it] failed to comply with the duty of due diligence […] for having delayed incorporation of the fact [against him], because it was not until July 31, 1998 that this investigation was linked to the murder of […] Sepúlveda, which began on January 31, 1994”207; (b) Regarding the investigation of what happened to Omeara Miraval (hereinafter, “investigation into Omeara Miraval”), Colombia “breach[ed] the duty of due diligence in the investigation of the alleged acts of torture”; (c) Regarding the investigation into what happened to Héctor Álvarez Sánchez (hereinafter also “investigation into Álvarez Sánchez”), it is “responsible” for “not having diligently investigated in the period between October 21, 1994 [ and] March The representatives included in their arguments, regarding the investigation of the facts indicated, the alleged lack of investigation regarding “prior complaints” in regard to José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia, as well as the lack of protection for said person. According to what has already been established about said person, as well as regarding the duty of prevention in relation to the right to life, these arguments will not be considered. In addition, they made further remarks about the lack of protection of individuals, linking this to the lack of diligence in the investigation that will be explained later. However, when presenting their arguments regarding the investigations, they also pointed out that the alleged lack of protection implied a breach of the State's duty to "reasonably prevent human rights violations." This section only analyzes the arguments regarding diligence in investigations. The matter related to the duty of prevention has already been resolved (supra paras. 30 and 56). 205 They stated that "the innumerable references that the government makes in its answering brief to the proceedings, the vast majority of them [are] only procedural." 206 It will do so with respect to all persons considered alleged victims. The clarification is pertinent because while the representatives affirmed that the violations of rights that they alleged in connection with the investigation of the facts harmed "the victims and their next of kin." The Commission argued that it was only to the next of kin of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez. However, the Court does not find reasons to exclude any presumed victim from the evaluation that must be carried out and, in particular, notes that at least two of the newly named persons remained alive for some time after the acts which led to the investigations committed against them or against their next of kin. A review of the enforcement/compliance/implementation, where relevant, of the InterAmerican Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, will refer to the period after the entry into force of said treaties for the State, that is, respectively, after the January 19, 1999 and April 12, 2005. 207 The State clarified that the “late inclusion [of Mr. Omeara Carrascal] as a victim […] does not imply that the circumstances of the attack against him were not investigated, since in any case all the acts related to the clarification from the crime scene, were carried out under the investigation carried out for the homicide of [Mr.] […] Sepúlveda.” 204