66 B.2.3. Investigation into Álvarez Sánchez 252. Regarding the investigation into Álvarez Sánchez, it is relevant to note that Colombia has indicated the intervention of paramilitaries in the three events280 and that, given the context of the case (supra para. 71), the proven intervention of paramilitaries led to an assumption of the possibility of action by state officers.281 However, even when the State accepts that the three facts may be connected, in relation to the investigation into Álvarez Sánchez, the Court notes that there is no evidence that it has taken any action to investigate the possible responsibility of state officers. B.2.4. Protection of family members 253. Finally, matters related to the protection of family members must be examined within the framework of the investigation processes. In this regard, this Court has stated that “in order to guarantee due process, it must provide all the necessary means to protect judicial officers, investigators, witnesses and relatives of the victims from harassment and threats whose purpose is to hinder the process, prevent the clarification of the facts and cover up those responsible for them,282 because otherwise it would frighten and intimidate those investigating and on those who could be witnesses, seriously affecting the effectiveness of the investigation”.283 The Court has heard cases in which, due to the circumstances, this duty had to be fulfilled ex officio by the State.284 254. In this case, there is no evidence that, during the time that the investigation has lasted, protection has been offered or provided to relatives of Mr. Omeara Carrascal.285 It should be Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157, and Case Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia supra, paragraph 150). However, the cessation of forced disappearance does not affect the fact that the events that shaped it are qualified in this way (Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 368). The obligations established by the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance are enforceable as of its ratification, even if the start of its execution was earlier (Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 137, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, paragraph 438). Furthermore, even when the forced disappearance ceases prior to the indicated ratification, the lack of investigation of the forced disappearance violates the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of the relatives of the person who had been forcibly disappeared (Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, paragraphs 368 and 513). 280 The State has indicated that State agents intervened in the events relating to Omeara Carrascal and Omeara Miraval and has recognized the possibility that paramilitaries also did so (supra paras. 16 and 19). In turn, it indicated that the material participation of a member of a paramilitary group has been “proven” regarding what happened to Mr. Álvarez Sánchez (supra para. 226), without ruling out the possible participation of state agents in that event. 281 The expert witness González Amado stated that, in contexts such as those of this case, the investigation hypotheses would require a clear understanding of the systemic crimes, registering the conduct within a more general framework, and that the link between the events and local or regional power structures should be considered. Expert Opinion of Iván González Amado given by affidavit, supra. 282 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 199, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 126. 283 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196 para. 106, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 126. 284 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 107. 285 In addition to the fact that no protection has been provided, there are statements to that effect. Thus, Araminta Omeara Miraval declared before the Court that, after the death of Mr. Omeara Carrascal, his family did not receive any help from the authorities and that the threats and extortions increased. (Affidavit statement of Araminta Omeara Miraval, supra. Additionally, Ricaurte Omeara Miraval indicated before the Court that when their family requested protection, it was denied. (Ricurte Omeara Miraval affidavit statement, supra). Furthermore, Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval indicated that he inquired into what happened to his father on his own, and that he could not file a complaint in Aguachica, because that meant “sentencing oneself to death.” He affirmed that the State did not provide the family with minimum security measures. (Statement by Jaime Antonio Omeara Miraval rendered before the Court at the public hearing held on May 25 and 26, 2017) Fabiola Álvarez Solano highlighted, in her statement, the circumstance that after her father, Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, testified before the Regional Prosecutor no protection measure was assigned (Statement of Fabiola Álvarez Solano, supra.