- 57 - 161. The Court finds that Edilson de Jesús Jiménez Ramírez, alias “El Ñato,” had been mentioned in the initial investigations into Senator Cepeda’s execution in 1994. Although it is clear from Investigation No. 172 that the Prosecutor’s office did not individualize or identify Mr. Jiménez Ramírez,231 the Court finds that it did not conduct any subsequent measures to tie him into the proceedings, other than ordering his “individualization.”232 The involvement of Mr. Jiménez Ramírez only re-appeared as a relevant line of investigation for the Prosecutor’s office in 2008, as a result of the testimony of Ever (or Hebert) Veloza, alias “HH.”233 162. Furthermore, the Court finds that alias “El Ñato” demobilized collectively as part of the Córdoba Mineros Bloc under the procedure stipulated in Decree 3360 of 2003. This decree established legal, social and financial benefits for those who demobilized, and that individuals who had committed serious human rights violations could not benefit from them.234 163. Nevertheless, regarding his demobilization, the Court finds that, even though this person demobilized under the alias “Jiménez” and not as “El Ñato,” the State did not say whether, at the time, the authorities in charge of the demobilization process exchanged information with the authorities responsible for the investigations, so that Edilson Jiménez Ramírez could have been identified as the person required by the Prosecutor’s office since 1994. In fact, the Prosecutor’s office had information that alias “El Ñato” corresponded to the name of “Edison” de Jesús Jiménez, according to information provided by the DAS on September 29, 1994. 235 The Court considers that, in the case of serious crimes and a serious violation of human rights, the obligation of due diligence requires that the authorities collaborate with each other in order to fully individualize and identify those suspected or accused of committing these serious violations. 231 The office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation advised that “on September 29, 1994: a report prepared by the DAS Judicial Police was added to the file; it relates to an informant whose identity is confidential, and who indicates as authors of the crime alias ‘El Ñato’ and another individual, alias ‘Candelillo,’ whose real name is unknown”; that, on October 5, 1994, orders were given to verify the information provided by the informant whose identity is confidential; also, and based on the description given by this witness, to prepare an artist’s sketch of the presumed perpetrators and their full identification, as well as verifying where they live.” Note No. 051 of February 12, 2010, from the 26th Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, addressed to the International Affairs Office of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, supra note 134, folio 8812. 232 The Prosecutor’s office advised that, after 1994, it had taken the following measures: “(3) September 7, 1999: report of CTI judicial police, efforts to individualize alias ‘El Ñato’ started. (4) February 26, 2002: order reiterated to individualize and identify alias ‘El Ñato.’ (5) May 23, 2002: report of CTI judicial police. Information on efforts to individualize alias ‘El Ñato’ that were unsuccessful. (6) March 24, 2004: the office orders efforts to identify alias ‘El Ñato.’” Cf. Note No. 051 of February 12, 2010, from the 26th Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, addressed to the International Affairs Office of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, supra note 134, folios 8812 to 8813. 233 Cf. Note No. 051 of February 12, 2010, from the 26th Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, addressed to the International Affairs Office of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, supra note 134, folio 8813. 234 Cf. Note OFI9-00130834/AUV 1130 of the High Commission for Social and Economic Reintegration of Insurgent Groups and Individuals of December 16, 2009 (evidence file XXI, helpful evidence presented by the State, folios 8902 to 8903). According to the information provided by the State, Mr. Jiménez Ramírez, had been in contact with State authorities for the last time in December 2007. Furthermore, Mr. Jiménez Ramírez received from the Peace Programs fund “18 payments for humanitarian aid of 358,000 pesos each, and one payment of 100,000,000 pesos under the heading of return.” Subsequently, he was granted payments under the heading of financial support for reinsertion for a total of 1,680,000 pesos in November and December 2007. 235 Cf. Indictment issued by the Human Rights Unit of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation on October 20, 1997, under Investigation No. 172, supra note 148, folios 7897 and 7984.