63 State has done in its response, that “the guarantee of impartiality is required […] before the authorities that carry out investigative tasks”.265 239. However, it emerges from the facts that after the complaint was filed with UNASE on August 28, 1994 (supra para. 87): (a) on August 29, 1994, UNASE personnel went to the location where the events occurred; (b) on August 31, 1994, UNASE arranged for an in-person visit to verify information provided in an anonymous call received that day, about the “sighting of a vehicle”; (c) on September 6, 1994, the statement of Mr. Álvarez Sánchez was taken; (d) on September 7, 1994, the statements of Fabiola Álvarez Solano, AC and RT were taken; (e) On the same day, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the search of two properties indicated by Mr. Álvarez Sánchez. The next day the raids were carried out; (f) on September 14, 1994, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered UNASE to request support from members of the security forces in order to find the whereabouts of Omeara Miraval; (g) on the following September 20, the referral of proceedings to the Sectional Prosecution Unit in Aguachica was ordered, for reasons of jurisdiction;266 (h) on the 22nd of the same month, the DAS reported that it had received an anonymous call indicating that the body of Mr. Manuel Guillermo Omeara was at the La Granja farm;267 (i) that same day, the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation ordered an inspection of the place, where the body of Mr. Omeara Miraval was found, and (j) On November 23, 1994, the autopsy was carried out and the body of Omeara Miraval was identified by his next of kin (supra para. 91). 240. The context of the case indicates the relationship that UNASE or the DAS maintained at that time, at least in the area of the events, with paramilitary groups.268 In this context, it is reasonable to assume that the actions of these entities in the events do not meet the guarantee of impartiality. The violation of this guarantee is in itself an infringement of due process and prevents the conclusion that the actions examined were effectively carried out with the required diligence. In particular, in this context, the information on the “posting” of UNASE personnel on August 29 and 31, 1994 is not sufficient to prove substantive search actions during the first hours and days. The same applies to the actions carried out on September 1 and 5, 1994.269 Regarding such actions, as well as the rest of the actions prior As was said by the State, the Court has ruled, indicating that “[a]ll the requirements of due process set forth in Article 8(1) of the Convention, as well as criteria of independence and impartiality, also extend to the non-judicial bodies responsible for the investigation prior to the judicial proceeding” (Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, para. 133, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, supra, para. 185). 266 Brief of the State of August 8, 2014, supra. 267 Report of the Santander Sectional Security Administrative Department Operational Post DAS Aguachica, supra. 268 For example, in the statement given by MR on May 7, 2015, he indicated that he belonged to the “L[os] P[rada] armed self-defense group”, and pointed out, referring to a time after 1992, that “they carried out joint operations between the Army and [the Prada group] where the guerrillas were. The police in San Martín also knew everything, the DAS too, the DAS [they] kept the lists, they handed over to L[os] P[rada], the list of all the guerrilla militiamen and so on, we carried out operations every time with the Army (evidence file, annex 66 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, f. 2422). 269 In addition, the Court notes that Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval recounted, in her affidavit before the Court, investigations that she undertook on her own, and indicated that "DAS said that if they went looking for [Omeara Miraval] but it was lie". In addition, in her affidavit before this Court, Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano indicated that "in the first days of September 1994" she had an interview with the then Director of the DAS in Bogotá, and he had a "report" that "had been sent by the fifth brigade of the army, in which it clearly documented information on the members of the paramilitary group that operated in the San Martín area[,] it gave information on how many men were part of it and additionally described the cars they used to mobilize with plates and everything ”. She indicated 265