and control of public officials, so that, in cases of grave human rights violations, it can complement but not substitute completely the function of the criminal jurisdiction.”245 204. Based on the foregoing, the Commission does not consider that the information provided the by the State regarding this jurisdiction, for which it has likewise offered no probative elements, is sufficient to conclude that the State acted with due diligence to investigate and punish those responsible for what happened to Mr. Omeara Miraval. iii) The Criminal Investigation in the Regular Jurisdiction 205. The Commission recalls with respect to the crime of forced disappearance of persons that the Court has held that, given its particular gravity and the nature of the rights harmed, the prohibition of forced disappearance of persons requires a corresponding obligation to investigate and punish those responsible.246 That obligation is also recognized in Article I (b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which came into force in Colombia on April 12, 2005, and provides that States Parties to that Convention undertake “[t]o punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories.” 206. Furthermore, the Commission recalls in relation to violations of the rights to humane treatment by reason of torture that the obligation to investigate is reinforced by the provisions contained in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which has been in force for Colombia since January 19, 1999. 207. In this case, the Commission recalls that it has already pronounced on the State's lack of due diligence in attempting to find Mr. Omeara alive after his disappearance was reported, given that there is nothing in the record to suggest that any steps were taken to look for him. All there is are statements regarding the incident made by family members, including Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, who was subsequently the target of an attack while unprotected. The Commission also notes that although an investigation was initiated on September 6, 1994, for the "kidnapping" of Manuel Guillermo Omeara, the State has not provided the record of the investigation or evidence attesting to the content and results of the procedures that it said it had carried out. The foregoing prevents the Commission from determining if basic procedures were carried out that required securing the scene of the crime, including the preservation of all evidence. 208. Furthermore, as regards the course of the inquiries, the Commission notes with respect to the individuals under investigation that in May 1998, Army Major Jorge Alberto Lázaro Vergel and Juan Francisco Prada Márquez were included in the investigation and that it was later ordered partially closed. Subsequently, Juan Francisco Prada Márquez was ordered to be remanded in pretrial custody and charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. However, he was acquitted of that charge on March 6, 2002. Roberto Prada Gamarra was also taken into pretrial detention but that proceeding was precluded by his death. The Commission notes that although it received information on the sense of the above decisions, the State provided no evidence in connection with their content, which would have enabled it to know the reasons for their adoption, in particularly the ones concerning Major Lázaro Vergel and Juan Francisco Prada Márquez. 209. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission observes that in the framework of the justice and peace jurisdiction, Juan Francisco Prada provided information in connection with the events, in which he said that Roberto Prada Gamarra gave the orders for the disappearance and execution. The Commission has no information from the State concerning inquiries to determine the responsibility of individual members of the illegal armed group who might have had a hand in the incident, or about other agents of the State who may have been involved in the investigation. 245I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 204. Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, par. 84; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 59; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 139. 246I/A 47