59 agent,245 and (iii) paramilitaries.246 225. The State considered “that the disappearance and [the] death” of Mr. Omeara Miraval “were diligently investigated from the beginning.” It asserted that UNASE's intervention did not breach the guarantee of impartiality, since it did not prevent the follow-up of a "line of investigation related to the participation of state agents and even members of UNASE."247 It indicated that for this "it has deployed [various] measures".248 226. In relation to the investigation into Álvarez Sánchez, the State affirmed that: (a) regarding the possible participation of state agents, that “the material reviewed and collected during the first proceedings gave rise to the consideration of three lines of investigation”,249 which do not rule out the participation of state agents, although “there are no elements that prove their participation”,250 (b) regarding the participation of paramilitaries, that “it has been proven” that [GM] was one of the material authors” and that “[JC], […] would also be the presumed author of the events”, but they died, respectively, in October 1994 and January 1996, for which reason “it has not been possible to determine with certainty the motive of the attack”.251 227. Lastly, the State clarified that “its acknowledgment of responsibility does not cover the obligation to protect in relation to any of the next of kin of the direct victims.” It explained that “[although] there had been news of [CV] since 2003, the true information about his presumed participation in the events dates back to 2008, so it is not true that he was recognized from the beginning, since his full name was not known and it was said that he was a member of the UNASE group, only due to judicial police activities was he fully identified in October 2010 and was it established that he belonged to the SIJIN of Aguachica and the necessary information has been provided to identify him as a material author of the act in the course of the investigation”. 246 Colombia argued that this was achieved through “various procedures” and, in particular, “taking into account the statements of various demobilized members of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front, who have referred to the events.” 247 In this regard, the State highlighted that “the investigation commission appointed during the initial stages of the procedure to investigate the facts under analysis, made up of agents belonging to the Department of National Security (DAS), reached conclusions about the perpetrators of the events, most of which involve the responsibility of members of the Security Forces, even belonging to the same entity.” 248 It should be noted that, among the aspects that it indicated, it argued that "intelligence work carried out" led to the accusation of Army Major JL, and on March 13, 1995, his involvement in the process and his capture were ordered, and that after he was apprehended. In the same month he made two investigative statements and his preventive detention was ordered. It added that various statements were received indicating the joint actions of the Army and paramilitary groups, and therefore on November 3, 1995 the Attorney General's Office issued a work order to “collect information on the UNASE personnel assigned to Aguachica […], accused of acting in coordination with the paramilitaries in some of the statements.” The State indicated that during 1996 and 1998 other statements were obtained in the same vein. In addition, it argued, among other actions, that "on October 18, 1996, the Office of the National Attorney General gave an order to locate the San Martín police commander (Cesar) at the time of the events." The State, with respect to the preventive detention measure that, according to its statements, was ordered in 1995 for Major JL, did not indicate if it ceased, and if so, when, but it indicated that in 1998 Major JL was linked to the process and investigated, and an order for preventive detention was issued against him. Colombia indicated that in 2000 it “decided[ed] to terminate the investigation due to [lack of] […] evidence” against Major JL, but that in 2010, 2012 and 2013 statements were taken indicating the participation of UNASE officers in the events, and its link to the paramilitaries. 249 These lines of investigation are, according to the State, that the “attack” was motivated by: (a) “the statement made by […] Álvarez [Sánchez] before the FGN on September 6, 1994”; (b) “[the] non-payment of extortion and/or protection payments collected by paramilitaries”, and (c) a “personal retaliation”. The State listed the “material” that, in its opinion, supports each hypothesis. 250 It added that, since "all the hypotheses have supporting evidence", there is "lack of certainty in the motives that motivated the occurrence of the events." 251 The State argued that the deaths already indicated, as well as that of RP, prevented the linking of the deceased persons to the proceedings. The State added that, despite the indications, the investigation continued and a person [JPa] in a "free statement" even when he accepted "that he joined the self-defense group of [RP] in 1994", did not acknowledge having participated in the act against Álvarez Sánchez nor did he provide information on other possible perpetrators. Colombia also mentioned the statement of another person, which indicated the participation of GM. 245