A) Implications of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility 143. The Court recalls that Colombia acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection based on its failure, until 2019, to institute the necessary proceedings of investigation to identify and, if applicable, punish those responsible for Pedro Movilla’s disappearance, and to draw up a plan to search for him. 144. The State limited its acknowledgment of responsibility for the violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, to the failure to observe the obligation to guarantee human rights established in Article 1(1) of the treaty (supra para. 17). This Court notes that, in cases of disappeared persons, investigative actions are important as a means to guarantee the substantive rights of the persons concerned,164 as has already been established in this case (supra paras. 33, 34, 39, 117 and 141). However, the State’s shortcomings in judicial and administrative proceedings are likely to directly harm the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Lack of due diligence and the failure to act within a reasonable period of time, which the State has acknowledged, therefore lead to a violation of the obligation to respect the rights in question. Given the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, this Court is bound to conclude that Colombia has violated, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the obligations to guarantee and respect rights set forth in Article 1(1) of the treaty. 145. It should also be noted that the State, in acknowledging its responsibility for lack of diligence in the proceedings until 2019, did not expressly acknowledge its responsibility for failing to comply with the IACFDP. Since this Court has already established that Pedro Movilla must be considered a victim of an act of forced disappearance, the Court finds that the State’s acknowledged lack of diligence in investigating what happened to Mr. Movilla entails noncompliance with Article I b) of the IACFDP, which establishes the obligation to adopt actions aimed at punishing persons responsible for acts of forced disappearance. On the other hand, although the representatives also argued, in relation to the investigative actions in the case, that Article I d) of the IACFDP had been violated, they did not present specific arguments regarding the alleged violation, and the Court does not find sufficient grounds for examining the matter. 146. Furthermore, the State denied that, since 2019, when the criminal investigation was assigned to the 190th Specialized Prosecutor, its actions had been insufficient. The Court finds that it is not necessary to undertake a separate assessment of what happened following the intervention of the 190th Specialized Prosecutor. This Court takes note of the State’s information and the various actions undertaken by the Prosecutor’s Office, but is it also bound to consider the investigation as a whole and notes that, after more than 29 years, the criminal proceedings are still at the pre-trial stage. Thus, overall, based on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the State’s conduct has been unsatisfactory, and the actions of recent years have done nothing to remedy that fact. 147. The same is true of the actions undertaken to find the victim. The State asked the Court to “view positively” the proceedings of investigation instituted since 2019 by the FGN and the UBPD, as well as other entities.165 This court appreciates the different institutional actions carried 164 151. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 134, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. The State highlighted “some of the mechanisms that are available to the victims to ascertain the truth, promote the search for their disappeared relatives, and gain access to complementary assistance.” These include the Commission for the Search for Disappeared Persons, “responsible for promoting investigations of forced disappearance, the design of public policies on the subject and the coordination of inter-institutional support to deal with the issue”; and b) the National Registry of Disappeared Persons, “which is a central system for compiling background information supplied by the entities involved according to their functions, and which is used as a source of information for the Urgent Search Mechanism.” 165 39