75 that, in the archives, there was no record of any medical services provided to Captain González on June 26, 1996, as he had stated. 260. The Commission also deems that, despite existing evidence previously indicated, no action was taken to identify the criminal responsibility of the other military players or to inquire about the participation of the high command of the security bodies and other state agents in the events of forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution. The IACHR draws attention to the fact that, in the case file, there is information on the identification of at least one police officer who would have participated in the events of the case, as well as the names of various military who had been stationed at La Piñuela army base in 1996. Nevertheless, the Commission observes that they had not been required to make statements. 261. The IACHR also deems that there was unwarranted delay in taking various steps, as well as periods of time when hardly any investigation was being conducted. First of all, the Commission notes that, during the first year when the first complaints were filed, various prosecution units were designated to be in charge of the investigation, a situation that affected the continuity of the processing of the case. Second, the Commission observes that, four years after the events took place, and despite the information that already existed in the case file about the participation of the members of the National Army and the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio, an order instructing that an investigation be opened was issued. 262. Third, the Commission notes that, between 2001 and 2003, there were no actions taken in the proceedings. Fourth, there was a delay in conducting the judicial investigations in the army base and archives to gather crucial information on the FTA and their ties to the events of the case. Fifth, the IACHR notes that there was also delay in taking the statements of the persons being processed, which could otherwise have contributed to greater speed in the investigation. The Commission notes that, on various occasions, the UNHR granted extensions so that the steps that were requested could be taken. Finally, the Commission observes that the UNHR recognized on at least three occasions, from 2001 to 2008, the need to give impetus to the investigation. 263. In this regard, the Commission observes that, during the conduct of the investigation, the State had neglected to submit evidence and promote investigation theories seriously and exhaustively that emerged from the gathering of the first clues and others that appeared at that time. 264. Now, regarding criminal proceedings No. 752.065, the Commission observes various omissions in the course of these proceedings. The IACHR notes that, from February 11, 1997, when the Regional Prosecution Service Delegated to Gaula de Antioquia took over the preliminary investigation, up to March 26, 2003, when the Head of the Specialized Prosecution Unit of Medellín decided to suspend it, more than six years had elapsed with hardly any steps being taken. 265. The Commission notes that, from the start of the proceedings, it was requested that statements from the complainants be broadened, which was never done. Likewise, in the case file there is only one additional statement and general communications about the situation of Vereda La Esperanza in the second semester of 1997. 266. Furthermore, the IACHR notes that, almost six years after the investigation was suspended, a new prosecutor decided to disinter the case file. The Commission observes that this prosecutor, in resolutions of February 24, July 27, and November 5, 2009, also underscored the various