the Inter-American Commission.284 Ms. Solanger Uzcátegui was not included in the Commission’s merits report, and therefore cannot be considered as an injured party in this case, notwithstanding any reparations that may be appropriate at the domestic level. B. - Obligation to investigate the facts 244. Both the Commission and the representatives requested that the State be ordered to carry out a complete, impartial and effective investigation within a reasonable time, in order to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible for planning and carrying out the killing of Néstor José Uzcátegui Jiménez, depriving Luis Enrique and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui Jiménez of their liberty and carrying out the attacks to which they have been subjected since that time. 245. Furthermore, the Commission and the representatives agreed to request the declaration of the State’s obligation to impose the corresponding administrative, disciplinary, or penal measures upon all state officials that contributed to the denial of justice and impunity with regard to the facts in this case. The representatives added that these measures must include the suspension from work of those officers against whom a criminal investigation has been initiated for a disproportionate use of force or a violation of fundamental rights. 246. The representatives added that the State must guarantee, through impartial, independent and competent institutions, a diligent investigation and prosecution within a reasonable period of time, identifying those responsible for the events. Moreover, they called on the State to ensure “that the investigation begun in the ordinary justice system is carried out with due diligence” and that “the authorities in charge of the investigation are provided with all necessary means to carry it out promptly.” They also mentioned that the State must refrain from using provisions of domestic law to avoid its obligations. They requested that the State guarantee “full access and capacity to act to the victim’s family in all the stages of the investigation” and, that the results of said investigation be publicly and widely publicized so that society can have access to them. 247. The State did not refer to this measure of reparation, although it argued, in relation to the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention that it had diligently investigated the violations denounced. 248. Bearing in mind that Chapter VI.5 of this Judgment established the violation of the rights to a fair trial [judicial guarantees] and judicial protection, in the absence of an investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the actions, the Court orders the State to pursue effectively and with the greatest diligence, the investigations opened and to open any others that may be necessary, in order to identify, try and sanction all those responsible and remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that could maintain impunity in this case.285 The State shall comply with this obligation within a reasonable period, taking into account the criteria regarding investigations in this type of cases286, inter alia: 284 Cf. Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia, para. 98 and Case of Barbani Duarte et al V. Uruguay. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 42. See also Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, footnote 214. 285 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, para. 174 and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 285. 286 Cf. Case Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 285. Colombia, para. 216, and Case of González Medina and 61