132 begun two days later by the 12th Deputy Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Regional Judges, based in San José del Guaviare; the investigation was subsequently taken up by the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General (supra para. 96.68). 226. The modus operandi of execution of the massacre –destruction of the bodies and terrorizing the surviving inhabitants of Mapiripán – has made it difficult to fully identify the victims of the massacre. However, facts proven and also acknowledged by the State show a number of problems that took place in the course of the investigations, demonstrating grave lack of due diligence in carrying out the official actions.261 227. At first, the Army did not effectively cooperate with the judicial authorities who sought to reach the site of the facts, for which reason the members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, of the Security Forces and a Delegate of the Presidency of the Republic were unable to enter Mapiripán until July 23, 1997 (supra paras. 96.46 and 96.69). Then, misconduct of the investigations is especially clear at the outset, in the obvious lack of control of the crime scene and in the insufficient actions of the first authorities to arrive in Mapiripán. During those initial investigative acts, only the autopsies of the remains of José Rolan Valencia and of a person listed as “N.N.” were conducted, and there was only one certification of removal of a body, which also coincides with one of the autopsies. One year after the facts, the file before the Court does not show that any other investigative acts had taken place, other than the trip by a “judicial committee” to Mapiripán, receiving testimony from civilian authorities of the municipality, and 58 statements of persons displaced by the facts in Mapiripán, the testimony of two self-confessed paramilitary, several judicial inspections, one provincial judicial inspection, also by the Procuraduría Delegada para los Derechos Humanos (Office of the Deputy Ombudsperson for Human Rights), and two reports submitted by the Army in response to a request by that Office, according to the report by the Attorney General’s Office (supra paras. 96.71 to 96.76). 228. Negligence of the judicial authorities in charge of examining the circumstances of the massacre by timely gathering of evidence in situ, cannot be corrected by the laudable but late evidence-gathering process to recover the mortal remains from the bottom of the Guaviare River, which the Attorney General’s Office only began in December 2004, that is, more than eight years after the facts. The shortcomings mentioned above, together with attempts by some members of the Army to cover up the facts (supra paras. 96.37, and 96.44 to 96.46), can be considered grave non-fulfillment of the duty to investigate the facts, definitely affecting subsequent development of the criminal process. 229. The investigation continued; some arrest warrants were issued, only a few of which were effectively enforced, and in April and May 1999 the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General filed charges under regular venue against seven alleged paramilitary and against four members of the Army. Subsequently, the proceeding was divided between the regular criminal and military criminal jurisdictions, for which reason for almost three years both proceedings were 261 See Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 148; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. supra note 11, para. 65, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 129.