the presumed enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. In this regard, it maintained that the duly reasoned decision was in keeping with the standards and guidelines of the case law of the Inter-American Court, which, with regard to the presumption of innocence recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention, requires that a person cannot be convicted unless there is absolute proof of his criminal responsibility, and if this is incomplete or insufficient, it is not admissible to convict him, but rather he must be acquitted. 243. In this Judgment, the Court has declared, inter alia, that the investigations conducted by the ordinary jurisdiction were neither diligent nor effective to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Osorio Rivera, to established what had happened, and to identify and punish those responsible; nor did they respect the guarantee of a reasonable time (supra para. 219). In addition, the Court has indicated that, in the case of facts such as those alleged in this case, it is reasonable to consider that there are different degrees of responsibility and different levels (supra para. 194); yet, only one person was investigated for the offense of enforced disappearance, and he was finally acquitted, without taking into account the allegations regarding the physical mistreatment or the possible participation of other persons in the facts. 244. Taking the foregoing into account, as well as its case law, 376 the Court decides that the State must conduct effective investigations, and open criminal proceedings in relation to the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera in order to establish the responsibility of the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts of this case and to apply the legal penalties and consequences. The State must conduct and conclude the pertinent investigations and proceedings within a reasonable time, in order to establish the whole truth concerning the facts based on the above-mentioned criteria for investigating cases of enforced disappearance, 377 and removing all the obstacles that maintain impunity in this case. 378 Due diligence in the investigation means that all the relevant State authorities are obliged to collaborate in gathering evidence, so that they must provide the judge, prosecutor other judicial authorities with all the information required and abstain from actions that obstruct the progress of the investigations. In particular, the State must: a) Open and conduct the pertinent investigation or investigations into the facts of this case, avoiding omissions when gathering evidence and following up on logical lines of investigation; b) Investigate all the elements that constitute enforced disappearance with due diligence; c) Identify and individualize the perpetrators and masterminds of the victim’s enforced disappearance; d) Ensure that the competent authorities conduct the corresponding investigations ex officio and that, to this end, they have available and use all the logistic and scientific resources required to gather and process the evidence and, in particular, that they have the authority to access the pertinent documentation and information to investigate the facts 376 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 285. 377 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 285. 378 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 277, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 285. 86