55 213. Based on the above criteria, the Court will now rule on relevant controversial aspects regarding the investigations of the facts of the case. It will present the relevant arguments and then the considerations of this Court. The Court will not refer to facts or arguments whose examination is not necessary because they have been included in the analysis of the violations already determined with respect to the investigation of the facts.228 B.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 214. The Commission “warn[ed] that the investigations […] have been carried out separately,” and that this has been “an obstacle in clarifying the relationship between state agents and members of a paramilitary group that allegedly participated in the events.”229 215. Regarding the investigation into Omeara Carrascal, the Commission argued that in the proceedings before it “the State ha[d] not proved that essential steps had been taken,” and that there was a delay in carrying out others. The details of the arguments made by the Commission are referred to below (infra para. 231). The Commission also argued that Colombia has not "thoroughly exhausted the logical lines of investigation." 216. As regards the investigation into Omeara Miraval, the Commission referred to actions “carried out in the ordinary criminal, disciplinary, and military criminal jurisdiction,” noting that the intervention of the former violated rights, and that the latter “does not constitute a satisfactory route. Alternatively, it considered “important that the Court analyze […] that some of the procedures were carried out by officials presumably linked […] to the body presumably [involved] in the commission of [the] events.” The Commission noted that in the framework of the jurisdiction of Justice and Peace, JP had provided information indicating that RP had “commanded the disappearance and execution” of Omeara Miraval. Despite this, the Commission argued that it did not have state information on “proceedings to determine the responsibility of the members” of the “illegal armed group” or the participation of state agents. It also understood that the proceedings have exceeded a reasonable period. of information between prosecutors may be sufficient, as long as there are formal channels of communication, in order to adequately integrate the evidence. Cf. Expert Opinion of Iván González Amado rendered by affidavit, supra. 228 Regarding the investigation into Omeara Carrascal, Colombia, given the terms of its acknowledgment of responsibility, understood that "the analysis of the [S]tate's diligence [...] must [...] start from July 31, 1998." However, it pointed out that the first investigative acts were adequate. The Court understands that the State's arguments regarding the first proceedings are contradictory and inconsistent with its acknowledgment of responsibility. Taking this recognition into consideration, the Court concludes that the actions adopted before July 31, 1998 could not be diligent for the purposes of the investigation in question. Therefore, regardless of the way in which they were carried out, they were not aimed at clarifying what happened to Mr. Omeara Carrascal. In this regard, the Court recalls that it has indicated that "due diligence with respect to an investigation is not limited to the mechanical performance of procedures, but it is necessary that this investigative activity be duly oriented, in accordance with the relevant hypotheses about the facts and its authorship” (Cf. Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 89). Due to the foregoing, it is not necessary to examine the arguments of the Commission or the representatives on the manner in which acts of investigation were carried out with regard to actions prior to the indicated date. This includes the statements made by the representatives regarding "irregularities in the taking of the first testimonies" and their "intimidating" nature. It also covers arguments about the omission of certain actions whose performance, by their very nature or in the circumstances of the case, would be effective or relevant in the early stages of the investigation or before July 31, 1998. This includes the indications of the Commission and the representatives on the collection of evidence at the crime scene or the adoption of protection measures for Omeara Carrascal, as well as for his relatives or other persons before the aforementioned date. Regarding the investigation into Omeara Miraval, it is not necessary to examine the arguments regarding the lack of investigation of acts of torture, as it linked to the indication of the representatives regarding the omission of an autopsy and exhumation of the corpse. Regarding the investigation into Álvarez Sánchez, it is not necessary to address the arguments of the representatives regarding the failure to initiate the investigation ex officio, or the lack of "procedural progress" until March 2003. 229 The Commission explained that in the three investigations there are various accusations "of the next of kin" about the same paramilitary group and, furthermore, "some of the names of the alleged perpetrators, such as [GM] and CV coincide in some investigations." “[I]t not[ed] that […] there is still a lack of analysis of the findings made in [the three investigations] and of investigative hypotheses that fully link them.”