216. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Commission notes that they committed a series of omissions, as was clear, for example, from the failure to include Noel Emiro Omeara as a victim without any justification, which stalled the investigation of the attack on him for several years; the failure to take immediate steps to find Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, contributing to his defenselessness and facilitating his subsequent execution; and the absence of protection measures for Héctor Álvarez given the gravity of his statements in the investigation of the events that befell Manuel Guillermo Omeara, thereby enabling the attack against him. Furthermore, the Commission notes that although there are connected elements in the two investigations, aside from a number of isolated inspections, the State has not provided any information to demonstrate that the investigations were adequately linked. 217. The Commission has also been unable to assess the progress of the investigation as it has not had access to the record of the domestic proceedings. However, it notes from the information supplied by the State that there were significant bouts of inactivity. Thus, in the investigation connected with Mr. Omera Carrascal, the Commission sees that after 2010 the State reported no further procedures until 2014; in the investigation concerning the disappearance and subsequent execution of Guillermo Omeara there was a significant period of inactivity between 2000 and 2007, and there is no information of any significant procedural steps since 2010; in the investigation of the attack on Héctor Álvarez the Commission has no information about significant procedural measures between 2010 and 2014, when a voluntary deposition was reportedly taken. 218. Finally, as regards the conduct of the family, the Commission finds that they took several steps to contribute to the investigation. Indeed, as has been noted, the violence against Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Álvarez has apparently been confirmed as the result of their interest in elucidating the facts. There is nothing in the record to suggest any procedural steps by the family that might have impaired the course of the investigations. f. Conclusion 219. Following its analysis of each of the proceedings and investigations in connection with the victims in the case, the Commission considers that the failure adequately to link them has impeded clarification of the facts and identification of those responsible. The Commission finds that notwithstanding serious circumstantial evidence of responsibility of State agents and members of paramilitary groups, the State has not managed to demonstrate that it has investigated that evidence in a meaningful, timely, and thorough manner. Furthermore, despite the fact that some of those allegedly responsible have been individually named in statements given by members of paramilitary groups, as a consequence of the State's delays, some of the alleged perpetrators have since died and, though more than 20 years have passed since the events occurred, so far, the truth about the motives and circumstances in which the acts of violence were ordered and, as applicable, coordinated with agents of the state remains unknown. 220. The Commission notes that the lack of due diligence in the investigations has also contributed to the impunity of the culprits, who through the ensuing acts of violence against Manuel Guillermo Omeara and Héctor Álvarez would appear to have made sure of evading their responsibility while also impeding proof of the links that existed between members of the state security forces and illegal armed groups at the time of the events. 221. The aforesaid situation has also prevented the truth of what happened from coming to light. The Inter-American Court has made clear its position on the right of victims or their relatives to know what happened and has found that the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.248 The right to the truth [...] constitutes an important means of reparation for victims and their next of kin and creates an expectation that the State must fulfill.249 248 I/A Court H.R. Barrios Altos Case. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, par. 48. Case of Bámaca Velásquez Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201. Case of Blanco Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, par. 62; [continues …] 49