the chain of command involved in the human rights violations declared herein, to consider differentiated approaches so as to avoid masking certain patterns of behavior, such as violations committed for political reasons, and that the Court’s own provisions established in the Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia be taken into account: As part of the obligation to investigate extrajudicial executions such as the one perpetrated in the instant case, the State authorities must determine, by due process of law, the patterns of collaborative action and all the individuals who took part in the said violations in different ways, together with their corresponding responsibilities. It is not sufficient to be aware of the scene and material circumstances of the crime; rather it is essential to analyze the awareness of the power structures that allowed, designed, and executed it, both intellectually and directly, as well as the interested persons or groups and those who benefited from the crime (beneficiaries). This, in turn, can lead to the generation of theories and lines of investigation, the examination of classified or confidential documents and of the scene of the crime, witnesses, and other probative elements, but without trusting entirely in the effectiveness of technical mechanisms such as these to dismantle the complexity of the crime, since they may not be sufficient. Hence, 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. 84 99. Furthermore, in the interest of ensuring due diligence in the investigation of the chains of command, the State must: (i) provide the investigating authority with the necessary budgetary and technical resources; (ii) ensure that the investigating authority is empowered to obtain all the information necessary for the investigation and has the authority to subpoena witnesses and officials allegedly involved in the extrajudicial executions to give their testimony; (iii) inform victims and their representatives about the progress of the investigation, and (iv) hold hearings where the victims can submit other evidence that may facilitate identification of the perpetrators. 85 100. Additionally, the results of the relevant proceedings must be made public, 86 so that Honduran society is aware the facts of this case, as well as who was responsible. 87 101. Finally, given the circumstances of the case, the State must refrain from resorting to figures such as the ne bis in idem principle or any similar release of liability to excuse itself from its obligation, 88 and must remove all obstacles 89 and mechanisms of fact and of law that prolong impunity. 90 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 119. 85 Mutatis Mutandis. Expert opinion by Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón (evidence file, folio 2586 to 2602). 86 The representatives, pointing to the alleged obligation to investigate the facts of the case, asked that the State disseminate the findings of the investigations widely and publicly so that all Honduras can be aware of them, as this measure will benefit not only the family members, but also the rest of society. 87 Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 118, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 215. 88 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41, and Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 177. 89 The Court recalls the words of expert witness Salvioli concerning the need to “clarify the frameworks of action of the Special Human Rights Prosecutor, so that its work will not be impeded by the Special Prosecutor on Crimes against Life, which should refrain from involvement in any matters that point to possible direct or indirect action of agents of the state, as this could relieve the State of responsibility for human rights violations." Expert opinion by Fabián Omar Salvioli, April 21, 2022 (evidence file, folio 2358). 90 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174; 12 Guatemalan Cases v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2015, para. 40, and Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 143. 84