84. The Commission will analyze below the due diligence of the investigation of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio’s forced disappearance, considering the lines of investigation studied, the handling of the investigation and the participation of the family in the proceedings. 85. First, the Commission finds that the purposes of the investigation were the discovery of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio’s whereabouts and the identification of the responsible persons. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that, after the complaint was filed, several procedures were carried out, during the time close to the disappearance, focused on discovering if Mr. Movilla Galarcio was being held and on identifying possible witnesses of his disappearance. However, these proceedings were carried out during a few days and afterwards fifteen years went by before any search efforts were made again. 86. Second, the IACHR finds that the State did not make due efforts in order to identify the selective nature of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio’s disappearance and its connection both with the union and politic activities he carried out and with the intelligence records. In this regard, the Commission observes a lack of clarification of the grounds of such notes, and that few proceedings of investigation were carried out with this purpose. The IACHR considers that this line of investigation, which was essential taking into account the already descripted consistent evidence, was not encouraged nor completely exhausted by the State. Instead, the General Prosecutor’s Office accepted the former intelligence officials’ statements although they did not provide satisfactory and clear explanations about the intelligence efforts for the victim. There is no record of any proceedings directed to studying the victim’s activities and the interests they could be affecting, nor their connection with the general scopes already mentioned in this report. 87. Third, there is no record of the State having clarified the shots fired into the air in the surroundings of the place of disappearance, made by a person armed with a gun that belonged to a police lieutenant. The IACHR observed that although this lieutenant stated he had reported having lost the gun, the General Prosecutor’s Office could not verify such report and the proper organization and exhaustion of a line of investigation related to this issue is not observed and remains unclear. 88. Fourth, the Commission finds that the investigation was separately developed by the PGN and the General Prosecutor’s Office and, although they communicated their progress to each other, a fragmentation of the proceedings is observed, leading to the repetition of many of them in both processes, impacting the delay of the investigations. The Commission observes that even in the same prosecution investigation there was dispersion in its development, given that the proceedings were carried out by multiple units within the General Prosecutor’s Office, until their last location at the Prosecutor’s Office No. 12 of the National Unit on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in 2013. In addition, the IACHR notices that during the first stage of the investigation, most proceedings were carried out by the PGN, while as mentioned above, in these types of investigations the criminal jurisdiction should intervene. 89. Fifth, the Commission finds that the participation of the family during the investigation of the facts was limited and restricted for several years, by rejecting their attempts to become a civil party on the process, which did not happen until 2011. 90. Sixth, the Commission wants to remind that the hábeas corpus was declared inadmissible through a formal requirement, inconsistent with the essential reason and purpose of the action. 91. Ultimately and in connection to the reasonable time, the Commission takes notice that the PGN investigation was developed during almost 8 years (1993 – 2001) and that the General Prosecutor’s Office investigation during almost 25 years (1993 – 2018). Specially referring to the criminal investigation, it has been delayed for more than 25 years and is still on its preliminary stage. Regarding the complexity of the issue, the Commission observed that the State has declared that “there are difficulties that reflected in the failure to get satisfactory results from the time when the facts were performed, which they have tried to overcome through the measures taken”. In this regard, for the complexity argument to be in order, it is not enough that the States explain the complexity of the issue in general terms, but it is necessary to present specific information which 20