58 Colombia also warned that the investigations have been “join[ed] with […] [a process] that is currently underway […] [in the jurisdiction of Justice and Peace],” 241, and that in this area “the investigation […] was undertaken in compliance with the guarantees of due process.”242 224. The State asserted that the investigation into Omeara Carrascal has met “the parameters established for the investigation of violent acts against life.”243 It also argued that: (a) “from the first moment of the investigation” the “hypothesis” of a “political motive” for the attack was assumed, and (b) the possible responsibility of state and paramilitary agents was duly investigated, in terms of: (i) state agents who are members of UNASE244; (ii) a police Omeara [Miraval]”, which shows “the collaboration between the investigating prosecutors of the three cases”. In turn, it stated that “the investigation into [what happened to] Manuel Guillermo Omeara [Miraval] contributed substantially to the investigation into [what happened with respect to] Héctor Álvarez [Sánchez] once the latter was reopened.” 241 In this regard, the State expressed that said jurisdiction is based on Law No. 975 of 2005, whose Article 2 (modified by Law No. 1592 of 2012) “establishes the scope of application of the law […] indicating that […] it regulates events concerning the investigation, prosecution, punishment and judicial benefits of persons linked to armed groups organized outside the law, as perpetrators or part[i]cipants of criminal acts committed during and while belonging to those groups that have decided to demobilize and contribute decisively to national reconciliation, applying prioritization criteria in the investigation and prosecution of this behavior”. Based on this, Colombia affirmed that "it is clear" that the application of the law "is reserved for the investigation and trial of the demobilized members of the armed groups organized outside the law who applied and expressed their willingness to accept the process and benefits established in this regulatory framework”. The State indicated investigative actions on the facts of the case based on proceedings in the framework of Justice and Peace. 242 Delving into its considerations, it indicated that in 2010, "the proposed [JP] made reference to the events" of the case, but that "his statements [do not] constitute [...] sufficient elements" to "determine [... ] individual criminal responsibilities”, given the need for “corroboration” provided by law for “the information indicated by the aforementioned in the free statements”. It affirmed that, "in addition to [JP], commander of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front, other proposed members of the Prada paramilitary group at the time of the events, have referred to them and have even accepted their responsibility." At the public hearing, Colombia said that "there will soon be charges made for this conduct" against "three demobilized individuals" who "have accepted their participation in the events of this case." In the final written arguments, it specified that “[a]ccording to the statement by Prosecutor 34, the facts of the present case will be presented shortly in a hearing on thematic charges regarding attacks on leftist groups, and [JP, [FP] and [JP] will be charged. They will also be presented at the first hearing of structural closure, projected for the years 2017 and 2018”. On the other hand, Colombia also asserted that "it has been clarified that the armed structure responsible for the events under study is the Héctor Julio Peinado Front" of the AUC, and indicated that since 2014 "the prosecution of crimes committed by [the] members” of that group “has been prioritized”. 243 In this regard, it emphasized that the victim was fully identified. Probative material related to the death was recovered, such as the ballistic opinion on the projectiles recovered and the photographic album of the scene of the event. It added that a statement was obtained from "all eyewitnesses to the event," as well as from "Mr. Sepúlveda's companions" and "those who were in the vicinity." He added that on December 4, 2001, the medical records of Omeara Carrascal were submitted, and pointed to a "ballistics report of December 26, 2007." It said that the moment in which these two procedures were carried out "does not imply significant damage", since the task of "identifying those responsible for the events, [...] is not affected by the allegedly delayed inclusion in the clinical history", and given that "the ballistic study [...] is delimited in a similar way". It clarified that "it is not required that this type of evidence be carried out as soon as possible in the procedure, under threat of losing its precision," and that "[t]he process focused on establishing the unit and the responsible persons, and only when this task was accomplished, would these other tests have been decisive.” It affirmed that as time goes by "victims have more and more confidence to testify" and that there are no records of criminal complaints by witnesses who would have testified. Therefore, it understood that "there is no basis" to maintain that the alleged presence of the perpetrators of the events in Aguachica would produce a situation of intimidation. 244 The State indicated that “although it has provided proof of [the] participation [by members of UNASE] in the attack against Noel Emiro Omeara, their individual identification has been particularly difficult.” It explained that "the news of their participation in the act must have been known through multiple statements and reports from the judicial police, which did not specifically identify them and that referred, on many occasions, to other criminal acts." Subsequently, lists of its members for the years 1994 and 1995 had to be requested, along with acquisition of their resumes, their identification cards from the National Registry Office, in some cases photographs, multiple photographic albums had to be prepared, to complete judicial procedures of recognition”. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it stated that "a very large percentage of the investigation has been aimed at identifying the State agents who participated in the events."