127. The aforementioned obligation to investigate and punish requires that the punishment must occur within a reasonable time period,114 and that there will be punishment, not only of the direct perpetrators of the human rights violations, but also of the intellectual authors of these crimes and of any accessories to the crime.115 At the same time, the Inter-American Court has determined that the investigation must be undertaken through all of the legal means available and must be aimed at determining the truth and at the investigation, pursuit, arrest, trial, and punishment of all persons responsible for the crimes.116 128. The Commission notes that from the moment in which Mr. Palma was kidnapped until Mr. Ordóñez made his statement on February 2000, the only investigative procedures that are documented in the file are the interviews that the O.I.D. conducted in the days following the crime with Mrs. Lidia Guadalupe Bravo, Mr. Palma’s common-law wife; with Mr. Manuel Armijos, who was working as a security guard at SECAP on May 16, 1997 before the kidnapping; with Mr. Francisco Andrade, who was working as a security guard in SECAP on May 16, 1997 at the moment in which Mr. Palma’s kidnapping took place; with Mr. Octavio Alcívar Arteaga, Director of SECAP; with Mrs. Zambrano Sánchez, who has a food stand in front of SECAP; and with Mr. Palma’s son. These are documented in the police report from May 23, 1997. 129. The Commission recalls that in the Case of the Massacre of lo Bello Vs. Colombia, the Court established that the negligence of the judicial authorities responsible for examining the circumstances of a human rights violation through timely in situ collection of evidence cannot be corrected by belated evidentiary procedures to find and exhume the remains of the body.117 130. Furthermore, both the Inter-American Commission118 and the Court119 have been emphatic in stating that the obligation to investigate and sanction all acts that involve a violation of rights protected by the Convention requires punishment not only for the direct perpetrators of the crime, but also for the intellectual authors and accessories to the crime. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Ser. C. No. 147, para. 94; and Case of The Moiwana Commuity Vs. Surinam. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005, Ser. C. No. 124, para. 203. 114 Inter-American Court. Case of Zambrano Vélez et.al. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Ser. C. No. 166, para. 115; and Case of The Massacre of Dos Erres Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Ser. C., No. 211, para. 105. 115 Inter-American Court. Case of The Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers Vs. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Ser. C. No. 110, para. 146; Case of Myrna Mack Chang Vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Ser. C. No. 101, para. 275; Case ofJuan Humberto Sánchez Vs. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Ser. C., No. 99, para. 186; and Case of Constitutional Court Vs. Perú. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Ser. C. No. 55, para. 123. 116 Inter-American Court. Case of Almonacid Arellano et.al. Vs. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Ser. C. No. 154, para. 111; Case of Ximenes Lopes Vs. Brasil. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Ser. C. No. 149, para. 148; Case of Baldeón García Vs. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Ser. C. No. 147, para. 94; and Case of The Massacre of Pueblo Bello Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Ser. C., No. 140, para. 143. 117 Inter-American Court. Case of The Massacre of Pueblo Bello Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Ser. C., No. 140, para. 178. 118 IACHR. Report No. 44/01, Case 11.016, Admissibility, Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, Peru, March 5, 2001, para. 34. 119 Inter-American Court, Case of The Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers Vs. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Ser. C. No. 110, para. 146; and Case of Blake Vs. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 22, 1999. Ser. C No. 48, para. 65.