148. In its precedents dealing with impunity, the Court has underscored the importance of establishing logical lines of investigation based on the evidence gathered during the proceedings. 246 Moreover, the IACHR notes that in cases involving executions, the Court has ruled that: In order to comply with the duty to investigate cases such as this, it is not sufficient to have knowledge of the crime scene and material circumstances of the crime; rather it is essential to analyze the information concerning the power structures that permitted, planned and executed it, both intellectually and directly, and concerning the individuals or groups that were interested in or would benefit from the crime (beneficiaries). This, in turn, would lead to theories and lines of inquiry and to an examination of the crime scene, witnesses and other probative elements. Hence, in cases such as this, it is not a question of examining the crime in isolation, but rather of inserting it in a context that will provide the necessary elements to understand its operational structure. 247 149. The Commission notes that as of the first statements given during the judicial proceedings, different witnesses gave the names of persons who had threatened, persecuted, and intimidated Carlos Escaleras Mejía in the weeks before his death. In addition, information was obtained about people who had participated in his murder, some of whom were state agents. 150. Thus, the IACHR notes that according to the testimony received, Mr. Escaleras had been both threatened and offered money at the orders of Congressman Salomón Martínez to withdraw his candidacy in the Tocoa mayoral election. The Commission also notes that during the proceedings, an officer of the DGIC identified Congressman Salomón Martínez as a suspected mastermind behind the death of Carlos Escaleras. During the proceedings reference was also made to the ties between both individuals and another suspected mastermind: Miguel Facussé, who wanted Mr. Escaleras dead because his environmental advocacy had prevented the construction of a processing plant on the Tocoa River (see paras. 57-60 below). Similarly, the established facts indicate that the perpetrator who was convicted told the authorities in charge of the investigation that both Congressman Martínez and Congressman Juan Ramón Salgado paid a group of individuals to have Carlos Escaleras killed. 151. The case record also indicates that some weeks before his death, Mr. Escaleras had received threats from Col. Aldo Augusto Aldana, the commanding officer of the 15th Infantry Battalion, due to his constant efforts to prevent the establishment of a military base in a river basin. 152. In connection with the congressmen Salomón Martínez and Juan Ramón Salgado, the IACHR notes that although they were named as being the masterminds, the State did not pursue the minimum investigative formalities to follow up on this basic information regarding the possible motive for the murder or to determine their possible responsibility in Carlos Escaleras’s death. The Commission notes that, according to the information furnished by the parties, those individuals are no longer under investigation. 153. The Commission also observes that during the proceedings, neither were those individuals summoned to give statements. A statement from the DGIC officer who incriminated Congressman Salomón Martínez was requested, but it was never taken. In addition, the IACHR holds that one piece of evidence of relevance in determining his possible involvement with the crime was the check allegedly received by Congressman Salomón Martínez in order to proceed to pay for the killing of Carlos Escaleras. The trial judge failed to properly assess the importance of that document because he believed it to be a forgery. The Commission notes that the judge dismissed it as a forgery but did not order expert testing or other procedures to determine its authenticity or otherwise, in spite of which he still dismissed it. 246 I/A Court H. R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 115. 247 I/A Court H. R., Case of Uzcátegui and et al. v. Venezuela, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of September 3, 2012, Series C No. 249, para. 225. 30