some cases, the impossibility – of obtaining evidence and/or statements, and this obstructs and even renders useless or ineffective, the conducting of evidentiary and/or testimonial procedures to clarify the facts being investigated, identify the possible perpetrators and participants, and determine the eventual criminal responsibilities. 180 The Court also recalls that, in cases of forced disappearance, such as those that occurred in this case, it is essential that the prosecutorial and judicial authorities act promptly and immediately ordering the opportune and necessary measures to determine the victims’ whereabouts or the place where they may be deprived of liberty.181 107. Furthermore, the Court notes with concern that, both the procedure to identify the exhumed remains located in a mass grave, and the other action taken to locate the whereabouts or the remains of the other victims have been totally inadequate. Proof of this is the fact that, to date, only 19 skeletal remains found in one mass grave have been recovered 182 and that, based on those remains, it has only been possible to identify four of the victims, namely: Cristóbal Rey González González,183 María Inés Muralles Pineda, Isabel Hernández Pineda and Santiago Colón Carau.184 The Court notes that the fundamental reason for this situation is not only the passage of time, which necessarily affects the state of preservation of the evidence, but also the decision of the army Commander in charge of the region at the time of the facts, who refused the request of the deputy mayor of the village to identify and give a proper burial to each of those who had died and, instead, ordered their interment in a single mass grave. 185 On this point, the Court has indicated that, in cases of gross human rights violations, such as those in this case, the exhumation and identification of the deceased victims forms part of the State obligation to investigate and is an obligation that must be complied with ex officio, because “the obligation to investigate includes the right of the victims’ next of kin to know their fate and, if application, the location of their remains.”186 108. In addition, from the evidence provided, the Court notes that the procedures conducted to date have consisted, basically, in the collection of statements and documents, measures the purpose of which was not an active search for the truth of what happened. Indeed, the case file does not contain a thorough analysis of the information collected with the aim of undertaking additional investigative actions or following up on different lines of investigation. The Court also considers that the investigations undertaken did not take into account the context of the facts, their complexity, the patterns that explain their perpetration, the complex web of people involved, or the special position of those potentially responsible within the State’s structure at that time. On this point, the Court has considered that, in the case of facts such as those alleged in this case, bearing in mind their context and complexity, it is reasonable to consider that there are different degrees of responsibility at different levels.187 However, this is not reflected in the investigations. Consequently, it does not appear that the authorities in charge of the investigations followed clear and logical lines of Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 135, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 236. 180 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 135, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 236. 181 Cf. Investigation file, criminal case No. C-805-1996 (evidence file, folios 50 to 56), and Communication of Forensic Anthropologist F.R., of March 25, 1996 (evidence file, folio 60). 182 183 Cf. Death certificate of Cristóbal Rey González González (evidence file, folios 1553 and 1554). 184 Cf. Pleadings and motions brief (merits file, folio 252). Cf. Statement before the Public Prosecution Service of Samuel Gregorio Bracamonte on November 30, 2007 (evidence file, folio 585), and Statement before the Public Prosecution Service of Samuel Gregorio Bracamonte on October 12, 2006 (evidence file, folio 537). 185 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 221. 186 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 203, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 150. 187 34