on May 25, 2000, as well as responsibility for the threats made before and after that day, through to the present. 170. The State noted that the Colombian system of justice is continuing with the criminal investigations into the events of May 25, 2000 and that the State will continue to take all the steps necessary to pursue this work in order to determine whether State agents participated in the facts. Regarding the investigation into the threats suffered by Ms. Bedoya, the State recalled that it had recognized its international responsibility and expressed its willingness to implement "the measures necessary to provide redress for the damage caused to the victims." 171. Regarding the investigation into the facts of May 25, 2000, the Court observes that within the framework of this Judgment, it has determined that the investigation and subsequent prosecution of these facts did not meet due diligence standards and that, in addition, they have not been able to clarify all the circumstances surrounding them. 343 The Court also notes that the State itself has indicated that it continues to carry out investigation procedures with respect to these facts and that "one of the current lines of investigation seeks to determine whether State agents participated in this case." 344 172. In view of the foregoing, the Court establishes that the State must, within a reasonable period of time, prioritize and continue the investigations necessary to identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish the remaining persons responsible for the acts of violence and torture that Ms. Bedoya suffered on May 25, 2000, avoiding the use of harmful gender stereotypes or any act that could be revictimizing for her. 173. Likewise, in view of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State regarding the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the threats that Ms. Bedoya received, both before and after the facts of May 25, 2000, and of its willingness to implement “the measures necessary to compensate the damage caused to the victims,” the Court establishes that the State must, within a reasonable period of time, prioritize and continue the investigations necessary to identify, prosecute, and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the threats received by Ms. Bedoya both before and after the facts of May 25, 2000 and that have been brought to the attention of the State, as well as those responsible for the attack on Ms. Bedoya and her mother on May 27, 1999. 174. Lastly, the Court deems it pertinent to order the State to adopt all the measures necessary to protect the lives, personal integrity, and security of Ms. Bedoya and her mother, Ms. Luz Nelly Lima, during the course of these investigations and proceedings, providing the necessary protection from any person. The Court finds, therefore, that the provisional measures adopted in the framework of 343 In this regard, the expert Daniela Kravetz testified at the hearing held before this Court that: In this sense, we have moved away from this notion that sexual violence is a first-hand crime attributable only to the perpetrators. Where there has been very important progress, is in attributing responsibility to those most responsible, which is the leaders of entities—whether State or non-State structures—that commit these types of violations. The main step forward is that nowadays, the concept of perpetrator is understood more broadly, such that the person at the top can be considered the perpetrator for having touched off a campaign of violence in which incidents take place through the use of an organized power structure to commit violence, as well as for establishing conditions of vulnerability that expose the victim to facts of violence—for example, by ordering an illegal arrest or kidnapping.” Cf. Expert opinion from Daniela Kravetz given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions. 344 Cf. Final written arguments of the State, presented on April 23, 2021, para. 187 (merits file, folio 1551). 60