39 143. However, the possibility of the Court, within the scope of its supporting and complementary jurisdiction, to examine the internal investigation proceedings,221, can lead to a determination of failures in the due diligence to carry out such investigations.222 However, this will be appropriate as long as it is evidenced that the shortcomings that are alleged could have affected the investigation as a whole, so that “as time passes, the possibility of collecting and presenting evidence that allows to clarify the facts and determine responsibilities is unduly affected.”223 In this regard, it should not be assumed that failures in specific investigative measures have a negative impact on the process as a whole if, despite such failures, the investigation had an effective result in determining the facts.224 144. In the present case, it is clear from the body of evidence that the authorities in charge of the investigation into the alleged disappearance and torture of the alleged victims carried out multiple procedures and activities to investigate what happened. Among them, the following can be mentioned: a) inspection of the house where Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí were found; b) search of another house, where the alleged victims were presumably detained the first days; c) receipt of statements made by the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice and Labor, the Attorney General, three prosecutors, and at least 16 police officers and 87 people who might have had information about what happened, or those possibly involved; d) reconstruction of the alleged detention of Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí; e) reconstruction of the discovery of Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí, and f) spoken portraits (identikit) based on what was said by Juan Arrom (supra paras. 71and 75). After this investigation, the definitive dismissal of the accused was issued. 145. The representatives presented a list of procedural acts and measures and alleged that they had not been carried out as part of the investigation. In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in principle, it is not for the Court to determine the appropriateness or usefulness of actions or specific investigative measures, unless the failure to carry them out is contrary to objective guidelines, or manifestly unreasonable.225 Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is necessary to note that at least 19 measures that representatives indicate were not carried out were in fact done in the course of the investigation,226 and some acts and measures were not carried out due to lack of cooperation from the alleged victims or their representatives. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 178. 222 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, para. 282, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 178. 223 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 172, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 178. 224 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 167, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 178. 225 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 153, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 213. 226 In particular, they requested the witness statements of Víctor Colmán, Ana Rosa Samudio, Saturnino Gamarra, José David Schémbori, Cristina Dávalos de Nicora, Florentín Giménez, Federico Aníbal Emery, as well as the statements of Hugo Velázquez Moreno, Cynthia Paola Lovera Britez, Gladys Maubet, Blas Chamorro, Raúl Marín, Antonio Debernardi, Sandra Quiñonez, Víctor Benítez, Nelson Alderete Santacruz, Gustavo Herminio Limenza Ríos, Pablo Morínigo and Roberto González Cuquejo. Cf. Request for evidentiary procedures and activities of May 22, 2002 signed by Luis Samaniego Correa, addressed to the Public Prosecutor (evidence file, f. 4483); Record of the testimonial statement of Víctor Colmán of May 29, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5807 to 5810); Record of testimonial statement of Ana Rosa Samudio de Colmán of May 29, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5813 to 5815); Request for witness statement of June 21, 2002 signed by Diego Bertolucci, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, f. 4489); Investigation statement of January 14, 2003 by Saturnino Gamarra Acosta (evidence file, fs. 6681 to 6702); Preliminary statement of January 13, 2003, of José David Schémbori Ocampos (evidence file, fs. 6651 to 6660); Request for proceedings of December 4, 2002, signed by Juan Emilio Closs Suhurt, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, fs. 4492 to 4494); Testimony of December 19, 2002, of María Cristina Dávalos de 221