means that allows the members of a group or collectivity to jointly reach certain objectives and to benefit from them.”124 76. As established before, the forced disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio answered to his alleged connection to a subversive organization which, without a non-appealable criminal sentence, was a result of the social leadership of the alleged victim and his belonging to trade unions and political organizations of left-wing ideologies. For the Commission, this interrelationship established by the organs of military intelligence is framed in the context in which the events described in this report took place, and responds to a selective logic of the national security operations that criminalized the participation of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio in trade union and political organizations. 77. By virtue of the former considerations, the Commission concludes that taking into account the motive and the selective nature of the forced disappearance, the Colombian State is also responsible for the violation of the right to freedom of association set forth in Article 16 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. C. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8.1 125 , 25.1 126 and 1.1 of the American Convention and I. b of the IACFDP)127 78. The Inter-American case law sets forth that when filing a complaint for a missing person, there is an inseparable bond between the government response and the protection of the life and integrity of the person reported missing. The nature of the government response must be immediate and exhaustive, disregarding if the disappearance was forced by an individual or state officials. The Commission reaffirms that whenever there is reasonable cause to believe a person was forced to disappear, is it essential that the prosecution and judicial authorities act actively and immediately by taking the appropriate and necessary measures in order to discover the whereabouts of the victim of the place where the person could be held deprived of freedom.128 79. In this regard, the Court has set forth that the duty to investigate implies that once the authorities become aware of the fact, they must initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, unbiased and effective investigation using all legal resources available and directed to the discovery of the truth and the persecution, capture, prosecution and possible punishment of every perpetrator of the fact, 129especially when state officials are or could be involved.130 This duty constitutes an obligation to use all resources available and not to obtain results, which must be assumed by the State as a judicial duty and not a simple formality deemed beforehand to have no success, or a mere management of individual interests, and which relies on the initiative I/A Court. H.R. Case Huilca Tecse Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, para. 71; I/A Court. H.R. Case Lagos del Campo Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Para. 23. 125 Article 8 from the American Convention sets forth where relevant: 1. Every person has the right to be heard, with the respective guarantees and within reasonable time, by an independent and unbiased competent judge or court, previously designated by law, in connection to any formal criminal accusation filed against him or her, or in order to determine his civil, labor and prosecution rights and obligations or any other rights and obligations. 126 Article 25 from the American Convention sets forth where relevant: 1. Every person has the right to a simple and rapid action or any other effective action before the competent judges or courts, which protects him or her from acts that violate the fundamental rights set forth by the Constitution, the law or this Convention, even if such violation was committed by persons performing their official functions. 127 Article I.b of the IACFDP sets forth where relevant: b. to punish, within the scope of their jurisdiction, every perpetrator, accomplice and accessory after the fact of the forced disappearance of persons, and even for attempted commission. 128 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11.324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic. November 10, 2009. Para. 225; I/A Court of H.R. Case Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgement of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Case Radilla Pacheco Vs. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 221; I/A Court of H.R., Case Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña Vs. Bolivia. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See I/A Court of H.R., Subject Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Judgment of the Court of February 1, 2010. Whereas thirteenth and Subject Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Judgment of the Court of August 29, 2013. Whereas sixth. 129 I/A Court of H.R. Case Velásquez Rodríguez. Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case Veliz Franco and others Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 130 I/A Court of H.R. Case Myrna Mack Chan Vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156; and Case of the Displaced Afro-descendant Communities from Cuenca del Río Cacarica (Genesis Operation) Vs. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 371. 124 18