into the possible responsibility of state officials, such as the custodial staff at Puerto Nare jail, for example. Furthermore, the State has failed to investigate other members of paramilitary groups who, according to various statements, are linked to other earlier and later murders and disappearances in Puerto Nare, specifically of persons associated either with UP or with SUTIMAC. 160. Fourth, with regard to the duty to investigate contexts, the Court has held that “[i]n complex cases, the obligation to investigate includes the duty to direct the efforts of the apparatus of the State to clarify the structures that allowed these violations, the reasons for them, the causes, the beneficiaries and the consequences…” Thus, identification of the perpetrators of a violation such as the one with which this report is concerned “will only be effective if it is carried out based on an overall view of the facts that takes into account the background and context in which they occurred and that seeks to reveal the participation structure.”122 It should not be 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.”123 161. Thus, based on the context of the events, which was common knowledge, as well as several statements received, the Commission notes that the authorities did not pursue lines of investigation that must have emerged from the outset: (i) a possible relationship with the increasing violence at the time against UP supporters; (ii) a possible relationship with the increasing violence against trade unionists in that area at the time of the events; (iii) a context of paramilitarism, institutions' tendency to look the other way, and the patterns of joint actions with the state; and (iv) an investigation of the possible link with other people who disappeared from the jail that day and the identification of a possible relationship between those facts. 162. In addition, despite the fact that it emerges from the statements available that there was an atmosphere in which people were afraid to report complaints, the authorities did not adopt corrective measures to enable potentially key witnesses to come forward and offer statements in secure conditions. Thus, the Court has held that to meet the obligation to investigate within the framework of guarantees of due process of the law, the State must facilitate all necessary means to protect operators of justice, investigators, witnesses and family members of the victims from harassment and threats that are intended to hinder the investigation, prevent the truth of the facts from being known and concealing those responsible for them.124 163. Finally, the Commission finds that there is no information to suggest that the State advanced the investigations bearing in mind elements obtained from the 2013 report of the Historical Truth Commission, which described the case as a prime example of forced disappearance of trade unionists. 164. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia has not adopted the necessary measures to meet its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish, within a reasonable time and with due diligence, those responsible for the human rights violations analyzed in this report. Consequently, the State of Colombia is responsible for violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and his family. Furthermore, the State of Colombia is responsible for violation of Article I (b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 122 I/A Court HR., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C, No. 213, para. 118. 123 I/A Court HR., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C, No. 213, para. 119. 124 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C, No. 101, par. 199; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, para. 400; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 268; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 299. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia Judgment of May 11, 2007 Series C No. 163, par. 171.