56 217. Regarding the investigation into Álvarez Sánchez, the Commission considered that from the “detailed list of procedures carried out in the investigation beginning in 2003”, presented by the State in its answering brief, “it is clear that in general, it undertook little evidentiary activity in relation to the hypotheses that point to the involvement of state agents in the events”.230 218. The representatives stated that “no effective measures were taken to connect the investigations.”231 They added that it took several years “until […] [the] investigations cross[ed] seriously, by assigning the same prosecutor.”232 They pointed out that in the jurisdiction of Justice and Peace "since [...] 2010, there were already [...] elements to consider who the people who participated in these events had been," but that "two years later" the “account”233 was sent to “ordinary” jurisdiction, and “absolutely nothing” happened. 219. Regarding the investigation on Omeara Carrascal, the representatives indicated that “from an analysis of the file […] there is no indication of […] how the evidence was collected from the crime scene, if ballistic analysis were carried out [or] reconstruction of the facts. They also argued that “despite […] information in the file regarding […] collaboration between […] the security forces and paramilitary groups at the time of the events, […] there has been no significant progress […] allowing the identification of […] state agents who were involved.” 220. The representatives made observations equivalent to those of the Commission regarding the investigation of Omeara Miraval. In addition, they stated that: (a) after the complaint was filed, there were no immediate measures to find Omeara Miraval; (b) there is no information on the steps taken, after the body was found, "to analyze the crime scene [or] the existence of traces on the items found with the body," and (c) the investigation "has not advanced since the first procedural stage, and currently only one person is linked to the process.”234 In addition, they affirmed that although the State from “the first moment” had elements that “indicated the participation of [RP]’s paramilitary group” and, in turn, had information that related this group to state institutions, “there was no indication in the file that […] it had acted “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission advise[d] that the State [during the processing of the case before the Commission] reported that there is evidence establishing that one of the alleged perpetrators was [GM] who was assassinated on January 14, 1996”. Regarding "other possible perpetrators," the Commission highlighted in the Merits Report that "in a free testimony" Mr. "[JPa]" admitted "having been a member of the self-defense group of [RP], [but] indicated that he did not participate in the events nor had information about the possible perpetrators.” In this regard, the Commission indicated that "there is no record" that the State had "attempted to gather further evidence regarding Mr. [JPa] or investigated the possible participation of other members of the paramilitary group or State agents in the events." 231 They indicated that it was pertinent to link the investigations because “there is a real common thread between the crimes, which was to guarantee impunity, trying to silence and punish those who wanted to investigate serious crimes committed with complicity between the State and paramilitary groups, such as the attempt against the life of Erminso Sepúlveda for being a member of the MAC”. “[F]urthermore, there are many people in common linked to all of them. There are various statements in the three proceedings in which the paramilitary group led by [RP], as well as different State agents from UNASE and the DAS, are identified as responsible for the events. [CV] appears linked to the case of José Erminso Sepúlveda and Noel Emiro Omeara and then again in the case of Manuel Guillermo, [GM] appears linked to the disappearance of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval and later to the attack against […] Alvarez [Sanchez]”. 232 They stated that “[t]he last measure adopted” in the investigation into what happened to Álvarez Sánchez was “the assignment of the case to Prosecutor 66 of the Directorate of Human Rights and IHL Prosecutors based in Bucaramanga, which also pursued the other two related investigations. However, this, added to the Prosecutor's Office existing case load, has not had an impact on a greater procedural momentum of the case or on a contextual and exhaustive investigation. 233 They indicated that they were referring to the fact that “[JP] [had] declar[ed] that […] [GM] had participated” in the events relating to Messrs. Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez. 234 The representatives refer to MR and refer, in this regard, to the decision to open an investigation against him issued by Prosecutor 66 on March 16, 2015 (evidence file, annex 93 to brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, fs. 2640 to 2542). 230