the efforts made by the State to verify the authenticity of the Diario Militar, as well as the work of systematization, registration and selection of documents by the Ombudsman in relation to this case, which has so far permitted the prosecution and punishment of two perpetrators. Nevertheless, the Court observes that, another four people, who have been named as masterminds and perpetrators, were identified based on this information. According to the latest information forwarded to the Court, two of them (presumed perpetrators) have been fugitives from justice since 2009, and the other two (presumed masterminds) are being prosecuted, although the Court is unaware of the exact status of the trials (supra para. 128). 148. In addition, the Court recalls that, in complex cases, the obligation to investigate includes the duty to direct the efforts of the State apparatus towards unraveling the structures that permitted these violations, the causes, the beneficiaries, and the consequences, and not only towards the identification, prosecution, and punishment of the direct perpetrators. In other words, the protection of human rights must be one of the central purposes defining the State’s actions in any investigation. 226 Thus, the determination of the perpetrators of the disappearance of Edgar Fernando García can only be effective if it is carried out based on a comprehensive conception of the facts that takes into account the background and the context in which they occurred, and that seeks to uncover the structures of participation. 149. In this regard, the Court takes note of the testimony of the State witness and public prosecutor, according to which “the Ombudsman’s Office is assessing the patterns and location of positions of command in order to determine their responsibility.” 227 However, the Court stresses that the information provided does not prove that a line of investigation has in fact been opened in relation to the participation of military authorities in the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García. According to the information provided, the investigation has focused on determining the responsibilities of those who belonged to the National Police, made the arrest, and executed the “patrol and cleansing” operation during which Edgar Fernando García was captured (supra para. 66). However, the Court observes that documents emerged in the Historical Archive of the National Police according to which this operation was part of a “Basic Security Control” plan, for which training had been received from the National Defense General Staff (supra para. 66). In addition, it observes that the first instance judgment convicting two of the perpetrators established that “it is evident that this forced disappearance was ordered by State institutions, [and] that the Army and the National Police intervened in it.” 228 It also indicates that “the disappearance [of Edgar Fernando García] was perpetrated by State agents (Army) and agents of the National Police who executed the order.” 229 Furthermore, in the Diario Militar, a military intelligence document acknowledged to be authentic by the State reveals that intelligence information was gathered on Edgar Fernando García and his membership in the PGT and the CAVISA labor union (supra para. 63). Regarding the record of this information in the Diario Militar, the said first instance judgment concluded that “[t]here is not the slightest doubt 226 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 118. 227 Cf. Affidavit prepared by Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente on March 11, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folio 795). 228 Cf. Judgment of the Eighth Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court of October 28, 2010, C-01069-1997-00001 (file of annexes to the State’s answering brief, single tome, annex I, folio 3978). 229 Cf. Judgment of the Eighth Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court of October 28, 2010, C-01069-1997-00001 (file of annexes to the State’s answering brief, single tome, annex I, folio 3968). 53