60 B.2. Considerations of the Court 228. The Court notes that Colombia articulated a series of actions carried out based on information obtained in the Justice and Peace process.252 It also arose from the facts that on January 17, 2017, three paramilitaries declared and accepted the facts, indicating that what happened to Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez was ordered by RP, and pointing to relations between the paramilitary group and the State (supra para. 167). In this regard, in his affidavit presented to the Court, the witness Iván Augusto Gómez Célis, Prosecutor of the 34th Prosecutor's Office, currently assigned to the case in the Justice and Peace process, on May 18, 2017, indicated that based on the foregoing, they carried out a series of actions,253 and that “soon” an “accusation hearing” will be held, and that “[t]his fact” (referring, apparently, to what happened to Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez) “will be presented at an accusation hearing for structural closure, projected for the years 2017 and 2018.” 229. This Court assesses the actions carried out by the State254 and the foregoing information and considers that it implies progress in actions aimed at determining what happened and the corresponding responsibilities in the investigations. Notwithstanding, it notes that it refers to occurrences that happened nearly 24 years after the events. Therefore, the Court must examine the State's prior conduct to determine whether, during the indicated time, the State carried out diligent and timely actions. In this regard, although the Court appreciates that there have been joint actions,255 the expert evidence, as well as The State explained that "[k]eeping in mind the statements provided by the applicants", various "investigative activities" were carried out, "receipt of statements by witnesses to the facts and family members, interviews with members of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front, and judicial inspections of the ordinary proceedings carried out on the facts, among others.” The State specified that: (1) On December 22, 2016, investigators from the Judicial Police reported on the following activities: (a) “[c]onsulting the free statements in proceedings given by the proposed members of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front”; (b) “[c]onsultation of the dossier of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front”; (c) “[l]ocation of the proceedings in ordinary jurisdiction”; (d) “information verification work”; (e) “[s]earch for information in databases”; (f) “[o]btaining photographs and maps of the scene of the events”; (g) “[i]nterview with indirect victims,” and (h) “[e]laboration of profiles of direct victims”; (2) "[o]n January 24, 2017, the Judicial Police presented a report on the hearing of the collective statements carried out with respect to former members of the Héctor Julio Peinado Front, in relation to the facts of the case," in which six people testified. As the State appreciated, "the questions put to the deponents were aimed at clarifying not only the facts of the specific case and the responsibility of the paramilitary group, but also, to reveal the macro-criminal structures that could be related to them," and (3) “[o]n January 26, 2017, the judicial investigator submitted a report on the analysis of the procedural pieces belonging to the basis of the framework within which the facts are being investigated within the ordinary jurisdiction.” 253 It stated that the following were completed: “verification, review reports, and analysis of the procedural pieces of interest within file No. 15 that is being filed in Prosecutor's Office 66 […] for the murder of […] [Omeara Miraval]; report review and analysis of the procedural pieces of [the] events[s] in [which] [Sepúlveda, Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez] were victims; Documentation of the events that occurred between January 28 and October 21, 1994, in the municipalities of A[guachica and San Martín, Cesar] where [the indicated persons] were direct victims [...] and judicial inspections of other prosecutor's offices ”. It affirmed that "[t]hese tasks were carried out jointly, in common and through feedback with the 66th Prosecutor's Office." Statement of Iván Augusto Gómez Celis, supra. 254 Notwithstanding the assessment of other circumstances, the Court notes the indication by the witness Gómez Celis, insofar as the jurisdiction of Justice and Peace contributed to the reconstruction of the phenomenon of paramilitarism based on a georeferencing of the departments, cities and municipalities where it was developed; a description of the actors involved and the time in which they carried out their activities; as well as a description of the Héctor Julio Peinado paramilitary front, its members, modus operandi, its structure and military, financial and political organization. Statement of Iván Augusto Gómez Celis, supra. 255 The witness Diego Fernando Rosas Carreño, Prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office 66, affirmed that there is intercommunication between all the investigations, which translates into common evidence and proceedings in some that refer to the others. He pointed out that there is also a relationship with the corresponding process in Justice and Peace, due to the need to know the statements of the members of the illegal armed group. He mentioned that there were never formal meetings between the prosecutors, but that they talked about the subject and drew up investigative strategies. The witness also pointed out that he was assigned the case of Omeara Miraval in 2008, while the case of Álvarez Sánchez was received in 2016. Statement by Diego Fernando Rosas Carreño given to the Court at the public hearing held on the 25th and 26th of May 2017. 252