64 to the discovery of the body, the indications regarding the relationship of the DAS and UNASE with paramilitary groups must be considered. From these, it must be concluded that these actions, as well as the rest of the actions prior to the discovery of the body, were carried out without observing the guarantee of impartiality. Therefore, the Court cannot determine the existence of diligent actions.270 Therefore, this Court determines that the State, in the actions prior to the discovery of the body of Omeara Miraval, did not take appropriate action. 241. Having already determined that the State failed to take proper action during the first stages of the investigation, the Court deems it unnecessary to examine the allusions made by the representatives regarding the lack of analysis of the crime scene or of elements found on the body.271 242. Alternatively, it emerges from the examination of the facts that no diligent action was taken in terms of following the logical lines of investigation. The reasons for this are outlined below. 243. Although on August 9, 1995, when it was agreed to open an investigation against the RP, the statement was ordered of a commander of the San Martín National Police, who was not heard until September 1997 (supra para. 127). It was a significant statement, since said police commander had information about the actions of the paramilitary group in the area. 244. In addition, at least since 1995, there were signs of the influence of the Prada family paramilitary group in the area of the events, indicating its “leaders”, and there is no evidence that the persons indicated as leaders of the group gave a statement until 1998 (supra paras. 130 to 132).272. 245. In addition, since 1995, information was received, in the disciplinary sphere, about the possible relationship between the army, in particular Major JL, with the “Los Prada” paramilitary group, and it was received in the investigation into Omeara Miraval in 1996, it was only in 1998 that Major JL gave a statement, in the context of the investigation into Omeara Miraval, on relevant facts (supra para. 130).273 The Court considers that given the context in which the events took place, it was relevant that before that date, military and police personnel made statements. 246. The Court also notes that on June 18, 1998, the authorities deemed it necessary to that she “[r]emembers that the [Director of the DAS] commented[ed] that if they had all that information why had they not done anything about it.” She added that he "called two investigators who had been ordered to travel to the area to find the whereabouts of [Omeara Miraval] and additionally give a detailed report on the group that was operating in the area." Statement of Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano, supra. 270 Note of statement by the expert González Amado, in the sense that the collusion between state authorities and paramilitaries influenced the fact that at the beginning of the proceedings the activities were purely formal. Expert opinion of Iván González Amado given by affidavit, supra. 271 For the same reasons, as well as the State's recognition of the lack of investigation into the commission of acts of torture, it is not necessary to analyze the aforementioned allusions regarding the investigation of such acts. 272 Regarding knowledge of the intervention of paramilitaries, it is relevant to note the statement by Héctor Álvarez Solano, son of Mr. Álvarez Sánchez, in his affidavit before the Court, that “on several occasions he [had] conversations with the paramilitary [JP], in one of them [he] wanted to make him see, that according to them, [his] brother-in-law [Omeara Miraval] was a guerrilla and that [his father, Héctor Álvarez Solano] was aware of this and that is why they committed the crimes. Likewise, [JP] told him that SQ, a member of his organization, […] wanted [Mr. Héctor Álvarez Solano] dead.” He indicated to the Court that the statement “was known to the authorities of the Prosecutor's Office and the DAS, through [his] father, and personally [he (Héctor Álvarez Solano)] made a statement to the Prosecutor's Office on several occasions, the last one being on October 31, 2012, before Prosecutor's Office 66”. 273 Although the State indicated that before, in 1995, Major JL had given an investigative statement, the Court appreciates that on that occasion he was investigated in relation to another event related to the massacre of Puerto Patiño that occurred on January 15, 1995.