proceedings against Rito Alejo del Río Rojas and other members of the Armed Forces; (b) the investigations conducted against other members of the Armed Forces; (c) the proceedings undertaken against the paramilitaries, and (d) the disciplinary proceedings. a) The criminal proceedings undertaken against Rito Alejo del Río Rojas 374. Two proceedings were opened under the domestic criminal jurisdiction (National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (UNDH-DIH)) for the events that are the subject of this case that date from 1997, in other words the year in which Operation Genesis was executed. According to the proceedings that were conducted, one of them refers to the presumed collaboration of retired General Rito Alejo del Río Rojas with paramilitary groups in 1996 and 1997, while he was commander of the 17th Brigade (case file 426), and the other relates to the incursion in the village of Bijao by paramilitary units, the “murder of a protected person” Marino López Mena, the forced displacement of February 1997, and the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime (case file 2332). According to the representatives and the Commission, these proceedings were not conducted with due diligence owing to: (a) the lack of security for those who took part in the proceeding; (b) the victims lack of participation in the proceedings; (c) the failure to implicate the private companies in the presumed harm to the rights of the victims; (d) the fact that the offense of forced disappearance had not been defined as an autonomous crime; (e) the fact that the crime against Marino López was investigated in isolation without considering its nature as a crime against humanity; (f) the fact that the prosecution refused to investigate the presumed pressure that resulted in the retractions by the former soldier Oswaldo Giraldo Yepes; (g) the fact that the prosecution failed to investigate the murder of the former Apartadó town counselor, José de Jesus Guzmán, killed while he was waiting to testify in these proceedings, and (h) the fact that there were logical lines of investigation that were not explored, because the extrajudicial execution of Marino López has not been investigated systematically, taking into account that the forced displacement of the Cacarica communities was made possible owing to the implementation of a plan conceived at the highest level. 375. Regarding the alleged situation of insecurity of the participants in the proceedings, 625 the Court points out that no specific evidence was provided in this regard. The Court notes that although the Commission indicated that, on August 9, 2001, it had granted precautionary measures in favor of the former head of the Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the head of the Anti-corruption Unit, as well as several prosecutors attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, and some members of the Technical Investigation Corps,626 in these proceedings it has not been explained whether the measures of protection for these officials are related to investigation and prosecution activities related to the facts of this case. 376. Nevertheless, it should be reiterated that this Court has indicated in other cases that, in order to ensure due process of law, States must provide all necessary means to protect agents of justice, investigators, witnesses, and next of kin of victims from harassment and threats aimed at obstructing the proceedings and avoiding the elucidation of the facts, and concealing the perpetrators,627 because, to the contrary, this would have an intimidating effect on those who could be witnesses, seriously impairing the effectiveness of the investigation.628 625 Reference was made, in particular, to the retraction of some deponents; for example, O.J.G.Y. 626 Cf. Inter-American Commission, precautionary measures MC 185-01. Pedro Díaz Romero et al. (evidence file, folio 1882). See also: IACHR, Annual Repor 2001, III C. 1, para. 20 (evidence file, folio 1983). 627 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatelama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No101, para. 199, and Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 171. 628 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández vs. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 106. 121