57 promptly and diligently to investigate the possible direct and/or indirect participation of state agents.”235 221. Regarding the investigation into Álvarez Sánchez, the representatives stated that despite the fact that the connection between the incident and the disappearance of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval arose from the complaint, “there is no action […] appearing to incorporate this […] in the analysis of possible culprits”236, and that “the possible state participation does not appear to have been taken seriously as an investigation hypothesis”, as “[n]either the relationship […] with the context […] of the persecution of the MAC and the extrajudicial execution of José Erminso Sepúlveda”. 222. Finally, the representatives indicated that “the State [did] not make any effort to protect” “[the]” Omeara Carrascal “family”, in particular, Mr. Omeara Miraval, who was a “victim and witness” of the events.237 In addition, they explained that Mr. Álvarez Sánchez and his next of kin were not protected, even though the former had “given a statement before the Prosecutor's Office in which he accused the [RP] group of being […] responsible […] for the disappearance of his son-in-law. 223. The State indicated that “taking into account the advances in the criminal investigations at the domestic level, it is not possible to establish, without a doubt, that the alleged violations have the causal link alleged by the representatives and the [Commission].” The fact that the State has not recognized it "does not imply that it denies that this could eventually be the case" and this "remains a line of investigation." He asserted that the investigations have been carried out “in an articulated manner”,238 and also clarified that “in the domestic legal system, the general rule is that each criminal act is investigated separately, and only exceptionally if the established requirements established by law are met, their connection can be ordered”. It stated that the existence of “three different processes and offices239 […] until March 2016, did not constitute per se a breach of the duty to investigate.”240 The representatives explained in this regard that: (a) “only” on August 9, 1995, was the “investigation of the paramilitary chief [RP]” ordered; (b) that “despite the belated efforts to link Major [JL], who was later acquitted of all responsibility, the file does not show that the State had acted promptly and diligently to investigate the possible direct and/or mediated participation of state agents in the events”, and (c) there is evidence in the investigation that indicates “that the Prada family group coordinated all the actions with the Police, the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) and the Army. Furthermore, they indicated that there is no information on “an investigation into the anonymous call that the DAS allegedly received and that led to the location of the body” of Mr. Omeara Miraval. 236 In particular, they stated that: a) they did not even “seek documentation on the criminal proceeding in which […] Álvarez [Sánchez] had testified before the attempt on his life”; and b) “[what] should have been the core evidence of the investigation – the statement of […] Álvarez [Sánchez] regarding what happened to Manuel Guillermo Omeara in which he accused the paramilitary group of the Prada family – was only obtained by the Prosecutor's Office nine years after the events". 237 In the public hearing, they also stated that "the perpetrators" of the events "remai[n] in Aguachica." 238 Notwithstanding the foregoing, it acknowledged that there was a "late articulation" of the investigations into the events that occurred with respect to the Omeara Carrascal and Álvarez Sánchez, "due to the late inclusion of Noel Emiro [Omeara Carrascal] in the investigation -until July 1998-, and [as regards Mr. Álvarez Sánchez,] […] for the period of inactivity from [the] beginning [of the proceedings] until March 2003.” 239 The State clarified that it was referring to “Prosecutor 44, [to] Prosecutor 66 and [to] Prosecutor 22, respectively in the case of Noel Emiro [Omeara Carrascal], Manuel Guillermo [Omeara Miraval] and Héctor Álvarez [Sánchez], all from the Directorate of the National Special Prosecutor for Human Rights and IHL”. 240 It maintained that the investigations "were carried out in a coordinated manner, taking into account the results obtained and the lines of investigation developed in each one," that "the three prosecutors in charge [...] kept themselves informed of the progress made in all the processes”, and that from the first proceedings, to the present, “the three processes fed and fed back through multiple investigative proceedings, especially judicial inspections. Also, in the three cases and during the practice of statements to relatives, neighbors and demobilized persons; Prosecutors have permanently inquired about the possible interrelationship between the events.” Regarding the foregoing, Colombia detailed a series of actions that, in its opinion, "demonstrate the aforementioned articulation." They are referred to later. It also said that most of the statements by demobilized members of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front, used to investigate paramilitary participation in the events involving Mr. Omeara Carrascal, "come [...] from the investigations into the attack against Héctor Álvarez and the disappearance and execution of Manuel Guillermo 235