77 has only shown that it has carried out eight specific actions for the purpose of apprehending Javier Bendezú Vargas and Dennis Wilfredo Pacheco Zambrano, none after July 2013. It should be noted that on February 5, 2015, the Court asked the State to provide, as helpful evidence, updated information on the steps taken to locate and capture Javier Bendezú Vargas and Dennis Wilfredo Pacheco Zambrano. In the opinion of this Court, the actions reported by Peru have been insufficient and the State has not acted with due diligence to ensure the capture of said persons. 258. In addition, both the Commission and the representatives alleged that other possible perpetrators had not been investigated. The latter also argued that the delay in establishing responsibilities is unjustified and violates the obligation to investigate within a reasonable time. In this regard, the Court recalls that it is not up to this Court to analyze the hypotheses concerning the perpetrators that arose during the investigation of the facts and, consequently, to establish individual responsibilities; the definition of these is the purview of the domestic criminal courts. 303 However, in complex cases such as this, the obligation to investigate entails the duty to direct the efforts of the State apparatus to clarify the structure that allowed these violations to occur, their causes, the beneficiaries, and the consequences. Thus, an investigation can only be effective if it is carried out based on an overall view of the facts that takes into account the background and context in which they occurred and that seeks to reveal the structures involved. 304 The Court notes that, in its judgment of February 9, 2012, the National Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima ordered the forwarding of certified copies of the case to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the purpose of investigating Ricardo Caro Díaz, Fernando Lizarzaburu Corte, Alfredo Corzo Fernández, Jesús Rodríguez Franco and Romualdo Segura Pérez (supra para. 131). However, the Court has no information regarding possible investigations conducted after that date. 259. Nevertheless, the Court considers that 24 years have elapsed since the events occurred, without a complete clarification of what happened or a reliable determination of the whereabouts of the disappeared persons, which constitutes a prolonged delay due, inter alia, to the application of the Amnesty Law and the lack of due diligence identified in this chapter of the judgment. 260. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that after the reopening of the investigation of the case in the ordinary courts, the State failed to exercise due diligence in the collection of evidence and in the location and capture of the fugitive defendants. Likewise, there has been a prolonged delay in clarifying all the facts of the case and determining the whereabouts of the disappeared victims. B.5. Right to know the truth 261. In this case, the representatives alleged the violation of the right of the victims’ next of kin to know the truth about the facts. Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra, para. 87, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 500. 304 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 118, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 500. 303