State officials that contributed to the concealment, the denial of justice, and the impunity of the facts of the case, and to impose the legal consequences.” 283. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to guarantee an impartial, independent and competent investigation to prosecute, diligently and within a reasonable time, the person or persons who were the authors, accomplices and accessories after the fact to the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina. In this regard, they described the criteria that it asked the Court to order the State to observe in the conduct of this investigation and its results. 284. In Chapter VIII of this judgment, the Court declared the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection owing to the lack of due diligence in the investigations conducted by the Investigating Court and by the Public Prosecution Service, and also for the violation of the guarantee of a reasonable time in the said investigations and for the lack of access to the file of the investigation reopened in 2007. The Court determined that the investigations carried out and underway have not constituted effective remedies to determine the victim’s whereabouts, clarify the facts, and guarantee the rights of access to justice and judicial protection, through the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible, and the integral reparation of the consequences of the violations. In addition, the Court recalls that one of the basic factors that influenced the lack of due diligence in the instant case, was the failure to make adequate use of norms and practices that would have ensured an effective investigation of the forced disappearance, taking into account all its elements so that it was not examined piecemeal. 285. Taking the above into account, as well as its case law, 314 the Court orders that the State must continue the investigation that is underway, effectively and with the greatest possible diligence, in order to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish all those responsible for the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina. This obligation must be fulfilled within a reasonable time in order to establish the truth of the facts and to determine any possible criminal responsibilities, considering the indicated criteria concerning investigations in cases of forced disappearance, 315 and removing all the obstacles that maintain impunity 316 in this case. Due diligence in the investigation means that all the State authorities are obliged to collaborate in the collection of evidence; consequently, they must provide the judge, prosecutor or any other judicial official with all the information requested and abstain from acts that obstruct the progress of the investigation. In particular, the State must: a) Conduct the pertinent investigation or investigations concerning the facts of this case, so that these investigations and the proceedings are conducted taking into consideration the complexity of the facts and the context in which they occurred, and avoiding omissions in the collection of evidence and in following logical lines of inquiry; b) Investigate the elements that constitute forced disappearance with due diligence and with an integral approach, as established in paragraphs 128 to 130, 209, 221, 222 and 226 to 246 of this Judgment; 314 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 174, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 322. 315 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 150, para. 181, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 185. 316 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101. para. 277, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 185. 86