73 250. In the present case, the IACHR observes that, once the complaints were lodged, inspections were carried out in Vereda on July 12 and on August 1 and 2, 1996 by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman and the Prosecution Service of the Nation. The Commission takes note that, in the last inspection, it was evident “that the house of the Eliseo Gallego had been destroyed, various articles had been stolen and Juan Carlos wounded” as a result of which photographs were taken and ammunition cartridges and bags used by the Army marked with its logos were gathered. 251. Nevertheless, in the case file of the criminal proceedings, there is no indication that said evidence had been submitted during the proceedings. The IACHR also observes that the petitioners reported that they sent the license plate numbers of the motor vehicles that were used to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the file that indicates that said information had been sought, investigated or submitted during the proceedings. 252. Furthermore, the Commission observes that about ten inspections and visits were carried out at the headquarters of brigades and platoons, including La Piñuela army base and the general archives of the Ministry of National Defense, mainly conducted between August 2000 and February 2001. Nevertheless, the IACHR observes that no information concerning the FTA was found but that, on the contrary, in some of them investigators were prevented from having access to the files. In particular it is worth noting the inspection on February 26, 2001 at the XIV Brigade which showed that i) the human rights offices of that place were closed; ii) they did not respond to numerous requests for information; and iii) existing files were partially destroyed and saved without any order or systematization. The Commission deems that impeding civil servants from conducting their investigative activities in criminal proceedings involving human rights violations constitutes a severe impediment to identifying and punishing those responsible, especially when State agents were involved. In the face of this obstruction, there is no indication that steps were taken for follow-up or the use of coercive mechanisms to ensure timely access to information relevant to clarify the facts. 253. Thus, the Commission draws attention to the fact that the Court has declared that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial in allegations where the steps to gather evidence or obtain proof have not been appropriately taken.376 In the present case, the Commission notes that these state bodies did not act with a minimum diligence to keep the evidence that directly tied the participation of members of the Armed Forces to the events of the present case. In short, the Commission deems that, from the first inquiries, the State incurred in omissions and obstruction that made it difficult to know the truth about the facts and punish those responsible. 7.1.2. Due diligence with respect to logical lines and the investigation of the responsibility of the authors 254. In addition to the evidence tied to the participation of military agents in the events of June 26, 1996 (see supra paras. 100, 101, 133 and 135), the Commission notes that, in the case file No. 233, there are various reports from bodies of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation and the Prosecution Service of the Nation referring to the collaboration and participation of members of the military along with Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio in the events of the present case. 376 I/A Court H.R., Case of Uzcátegui v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2010. Series C No. 249, paragraph 218.