74 255. Furthermore, the Commission highlights at least five reports from bodies of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation and the Prosecution Service of the Nation underscoring the alleged participation of members of the army in the events of the present case. Second, there are about 20 statements made by next of kin and witnesses included in the proceedings. The Commission notes that, in the majority of these, reference is made to the participation of military agents in the disappearances or extrajudicial execution of the victims, either because i) they witnessed the various incidents that occurred in Vereda; ii) subsequently identified the military agents who participated in the events; or iii) held a direct dialogue with members of the military or paramilitary groups who confirmed what had happened. 256. Third, the IACHR observes the resolutions of the UNHR and the Superior Court of Bogotá where it was indicated that there were various elements of evidence that linked members of the National Army to the events. Fourth, there are the statements made by Ramón Isaza, leader of the SelfDefense Forces of Magdalena Medio, where he acknowledges the participation of the National Army in the planning and execution of the events in Vereda La Esperanza. 257. The Commission draws attention to the fact that the Court has stressed the importance of establishing logical lines of investigation on the basis of the proof and evidence gathered during the proceedings.377 In that regard, the IACHR deems that, despite these elements, during the investigation no effective line of investigation was followed to link all persons responsible, including the members of the Armed Forces. 258. Regarding this, the IACHR draws attention to the fact that, in cases of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearance, the Court has contended that: (...) 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 378 their corresponding responsibilities. (...) [I]t 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 379 classified or confidential documents (…) and other probative elements. 259. The Commission observes that recently, almost four years after the events took place, the UNHR issued the resolution to file an investigation against Ramón Isaza, leader of the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio, and Army Major Carlos Guzmán Lombana. Regarding the latter, the IACHR notes that the authorities in charge of the investigation did not take basic steps to seriously and effectively investigate their alleged responsibility, such as appraising the photographs and material of the National Army seized at the residence of Mr. Gallego referring to the events of June 26, 1996, as well as assessing the certificate from the director of the Hospital del Santuario where it was indicated 377 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and next of kin v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, paragraph 115. 378 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 219; Case of Valle Jaramillo and others v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 101. 379 I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paragraph 119.