- 44 - of the interested parties, by all available legal means and designed to determine the truth. In addition, depending on the right that is in danger or alleged to have been violated, such as the right to life in this case, the investigation must endeavor to ensure the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of all the authors of the facts, especially when State agents are or may be involved.176 118. In complex cases, the obligation to investigate includes the duty to direct the efforts of the apparatus of the State to clarify the structures that allowed these violations, the reasons for them, the causes, the beneficiaries and the consequences, and not merely to discover, prosecute and, if applicable, punish the direct perpetrators. In other words, the protection of human rights should be one of the central purposes that determine how the State acts in any type of investigation. Thus, determination of the perpetrators of Senator Cepeda’s extrajudicial execution will only be effective if it is carried out based on an overall view of the facts that takes into account the background and context in which they occurred and that seeks to reveal the participation structure. 119. As part of the obligation to investigate extrajudicial executions such as the one perpetrated in the instant case, the State authorities must determine, by due process of law, the patterns of collaborative action and all the individuals who took part in the said violations in different ways, together with their corresponding responsibilities.177 It is not sufficient to be aware of the scene and material circumstances of the crime; rather it is essential to analyze the awareness of the power structures that allowed, designed and executed it, both intellectually and directly, as well as the interested persons or groups and those who benefited from the crime (beneficiaries). This, in turn, can lead to the generation of theories and lines of investigation, the examination of classified or confidential documents and of the scene of the crime, witnesses, and other probative elements, but without trusting entirely in the effectiveness of technical mechanisms such as these to dismantle the complexity of the crime, since they may not be sufficient. Hence, it is not a question of examining the crime in isolation, but rather of inserting it in a context that will provide the necessary elements to understand its operational structure. 120. In this regard, expert witness Michael Reed indicated that the investigation of crimes such as that of Senator Cepeda should take into account all the evidence from other proceedings that allows patterns to be revealed; hence this execution should be related to other similar cases, such as the threats, harassment and murder of other UP leaders, representatives and even presidential candidates.178 121. Similarly, in 2004, the office of the Attorney General of the Republic stated that, owing to the specific characteristics of the case, an appropriate investigation into Senator Cepeda’s execution would require, “the maximum investigative and deductive efforts in order to harmonize each and every piece of evidence within the context of the circumstances at the time.” He added that: 176 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 136, para. 143; Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, supra note 15, para. 290, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 101. 177 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 22, para. 219; Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, supra note 15, para. 454, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 101. 178 Cf. statement made by Michael Reed Hurtado at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2010.