76 flaws and omissions during the investigation. Regarding this, he stressed his concern about “(...) the issuance of a resolution of suspension in the previous investigation without any activity by the Prosecution Service Assigned to Gaula Rural Oriente Antioqueño.” He also indicated “the absence of an adequate prior investigative activity” in the proceedings. Despite the identification of a wide range of deficiencies in the investigation, the Prosecution Office did not adopt the necessary measures to remedy the situation and ensure a proper investigation. 267. Without detriment to examining, in the following section, the investigation in the special framework of the Justice and Peace Law, with respect to the ordinary proceedings from a general perspective, the Commission observes that the results of the ordinary courts more than 17 years after events took place have led to a situation of impunity as there is no judgment of conviction against anyone. 268. In view of all of the above, the Commission concludes that there is a clear absence of due diligence in the investigation of the facts, as a result of which the State has perpetuated the situation of impunity in which the events of Vereda La Esperanza have been left. 7.1.3. Situation of risk for the persons who have testified in the proceedings 269. In its case law the Court has established the State’s obligation to “adopt ex officio and immediately sufficient investigation and overall protection measures regarding any act of coercion, intimidation and threat towards witnesses and investigators.”380 The IACHR deems that said duty constitutes one of the elements to duly fulfill the obligation of investigating. 270. In the present case, the Commission observes that, on June 30, 1996, Juan Carlos Gallego testified regarding the events taking place on June 26 of that year at the Municipal Ombudsman’s Office of Cocorná. A week later, on July 7, 1996 Juan Carlos Gallego was took into custody and disappeared. Furthermore, Andrés Gallego also filed a complaint on July 11 and then added to that complaint on October 25, 1996, where he referred to various events that took place in Vereda La Esperanza. On December 27, 1996, Andrés Gallego was took into custody and disappeared. In both allegations, the two alleged victims claimed that the Armed Forces had participated and that they had collaborated with paramilitary groups to perpetrate the events that were mentioned. 271. In addition, the Commission took note of the active participation of Helí Gómez and Edgar Mario Alzate, municipal ombudsmen of Carmen de Viboral and Cocorná, respectively. The IACHR notes that both denounced and promoted the investigation with various authorities regarding the planning and execution by military groups and the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio of the incidents subject of the present case. As indicated in the case file, due to their participation in the domestic proceeding of the instant case, Mr. Gómez was killed on July 26, 1996, whereas Mr. Alzate took refuge in Australia for fear of being killed. 272. The Commission deems that the participation of the four above-mentioned persons, two of them considered to be victims in the present case, was broadly relevant to incriminate the authors of the crime and to continue and promote the investigation. Nevertheless, the IACHR observes 380 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, paragraph 107.