62 DAS was commissioned to locate witnesses and determine whether UNASE existed in the municipality of Aguachica (supra para. 106), and after April 2002 an inspection of UNASE headquarters was ordered, to determine its personnel in 1994 (supra para. 107). In May 2002 an inspection of the investigation into Omeara Miraval was ordered (supra para. 139). Regarding all of the above, it should be noted that the information on UNASE personnel had been incorporated into the investigation into Omeara Miraval since 1996. Therefore, there was an unnecessary delay, in the investigation on Omeara Carrascal, in obtaining the information, which was in the power of the state. Therefore, considering the possibility of the intervention of members of the UNASE in the events, this resulted in negligent action in the follow-up of lines of investigation. 234. Regarding the above, it should be noted that the May 2002 inspection mentioned in the preceding paragraph was the first to be carried out. According to expert evidence rendered before the Court, the judicial inspections were delayed.260 235. Furthermore, although in the investigation into Omeara Miraval in 1995 statements had been received indicating Major JL's links with paramilitary groups in Aguachica (supra footnote 248), that information was only incorporated into the investigation into Omeara Carrascal in 2004 (supra para. 109). In addition, there is no resulting evidence that, after 2004, in the investigation on Omeara Carrascal, actions were taken to follow up on said information, such as ordering the statement of Major JL or of the declarants who had stated his link to the paramilitary groups. B.2.2. Investigation into Omeara Miraval 236. Regarding the investigation in the events that occurred to Mr. Omeara Miraval, it should be established, first of all, that the respective duty of the State arises not only from the American Convention, but also, from the dates of its entry into force, of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, whose violation in the case has already been determined based on State recognition (supra para. 19) and of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance.261 The Commission and the representatives argued the violation of these treaties. 237. The Court also recalls that military justice “is not the appropriate jurisdiction to investigate […] human rights violations.”262 However, it does not appear that in this case said intervention has replaced, prevented, delayed, suspended or detrimentally affected in any way the actions of other jurisdictions. Although the disciplinary investigation is not suitable to replace the criminal jurisdiction263 and, furthermore, in this case, it did not lead to effective sanctions, nor did it undermine other actions. Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the actions referred to, but rather proceeds to analyze actions in the ordinary jurisdiction. 238. In this regard, it should be remembered that in cases in which it can be assumed that a person is missing as a result of an illegal act, the States must act promptly in the first hours and days after the report of disappearance or kidnapping.264 This Court also warns, as the This was indicated by the expert Iván González Amado. Expert opinion of Iván González Amado, supra. Regarding the Inter-American Convention against Torture, it has already been indicated that the date from which Colombia's responsibility can be examined is February 18, 1999 (supra para. 209). The Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance entered into force for the State on April 12, 2005. 262 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 84. 263 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 204. 264 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 203. 260 261