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.146 98. The Commission observes that the DGIC investigators themselves recognized that, sometimes, they wanted to monitor the possible instigators; nevertheless, they were unable to do so in official motor vehicles because these cars were "already identified." Likewise, on another occasion, DGIC investigators requested that steps be taken to provide protection to a witness so that he/she could make a statement in the courts and thus contribute to moving the investigation forward. The IACHR notes that, in the case file, there is no mention of any measures adopted to overcome the above-mentioned obstacles. 99. As for police officer Santos Mendoza, the IACHR observes that he was identified by the acting coordinator of DGIC as the alleged instigator less than one week after Mr. Pacheco's death. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the case file does not indicate any step taken to identify his criminal responsibility, not even requesting a deposition from him or making inquiries at the headquarters where he worked, among others. There is only a 2010 report from a prosecutor indicating that "the only hypothesis that is being worked on is that the perpetrator of the crime was a preventive police officer.” 100. Because of what is indicated in this section, the Commission considers that, during the development of the investigation, the State has neglected to gather evidence and seriously and exhaustively promote basic lines of inquiry that would effectively respond to the clues that involved at least four state authorities and that had emerged from the very start. b. Absence of diligence and obstacles in the investigations 101. In the present case, the IACHR observes that, in addition to the state agents mentioned earlier who might have been involved in Ángel Pacheco's death, at least three other persons had also been identified as the alleged instigators of the crime. These three persons, according to the next of kin of Ángel Pacheco, had sent him death threats before he was killed. Likewise, the IACHR notes that these three persons had held public office, such as the former congresspersons Benjamín Cárdenas and Jorge Berrios, and the former member of Armed Forces Salvador Cárdenas. 102. The Commission observes that their involvement in Mr. Pacheco's killing was identified in various DGIC reports. The case file also shows a DGIC report indicating that a gun confiscated from Benjamín Cárdenas matched the type of gun used to kill Ángel Pacheco. 103. Despite all of these clues, the Commission considers that the State did not adopt the minimum steps needed to adequately investigate the alleged responsibility of these persons. 104. Thus, for example, the IACHR observes that, despite many statements involving the abovementioned persons, including state agents, as the alleged instigators, as well as the police officer as the alleged perpetrator, no steps were taken to judicially establish their responsibilities. On the contrary, it appears that, during the first year and half after the crime, the investigations focused on Messrs. Maldonado, Estrada, and Vigil. The Commission reiterates that, in the court case file, there are no clues that would make it possible to understand this focus of the investigation. Furthermore, the IACHR stresses that, in the decision 146 I/A Court H.R., Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 222.