61 Mexico itself indicated during the public hearing of the case (supra para. 9) that “[u]p to now, after multiple efforts that can be found in the case file, […] it has not been able to completely elucidate how the facts occurred.” 203. Upon analyzing the effectiveness of the investigations carried out in the present case, the Court has not failed to notice that from the context in which the disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco is enclosed (supra paras. 132 through 137) the probable existence of different degrees of responsibility in facts such as the present can be concluded. During the public hearing, making general reference to the period in which the facts occurred, the State mentioned that “[t]he government was an entity centralized in the presidential figure where there was not an exogenous or endogenous counterweight to limit said power, in which verticality also regulated the inside, and there was no institutional framework that could submit governmental instances to an accountability process.” 204. In this sense, the Historical Report of the Special Prosecutors’ Office establishes that: “[i]t has been verified that the authoritarian regimen, at the highest levels of command, prevented, criminalized, and fought against different sectors of the population that had organized themselves to demand a greater democratic participation in the decisions that affected them, and of those who wanted to put a stop to authoritarianism, patrimonialism, and the structures of mediation, and oppression. The fight undertaken by the authoritarian regimen against these national groups […] went beyond the legal framework and incurred in crimes against humanity and violations to International Humanitarian Law [sic], which culminated in massacres, forced disappearances, systematic torture, and genocide […] The State’s institutions were used to this 206 effect, thus perverting them.” 205. In this regard, the Tribunal observes that during a period of approximately 5 years, that is, from May 11, 2002, date on which the Special Prosecutors’ Office started the investigations corresponding to the present case (supra para. 187), up until February 15, 2007, date on which the General Investigation Coordination settled the preliminary inquiry in which the facts of the present case are being investigated (supra para. 189), only one person was brought before the judicial authority as probable responsible of the commission of the crime of illegal deprivation of freedom in its modality of plagiarism and kidnapping against Mr. Radilla-Pacheco207 (supra para. 188). The Court points out that the State did not refer to other specific diligences related to the probable responsibility of other people. In that sense, the representatives indicated that, “[t]hey had found […] important historical evidence that incriminate several high commands of the Armed Forces. However, the [Special Prosecutors’ Office] only summoned 3 members of the Armed Forces [that] were already imprisoned for other crimes to testify, and […] ignored following-up on other lines of investigation.” The State did not object this matter. 206. As has been established on other opportunities, the Court considers that the authorities in charge of the investigations had the duty to guarantee that throughout the course of the same the systematic patters that permitted the commission of grave violations of human rights in the present case would be assessed.208 In seeking to guarantee its effectiveness, the investigation should have been carried out taking into account the 206 Cf. Historical Report to the Mexican Society, Special Prosecutors’ Office for Social and Political Movements of the past, Attorney General of the Republic, 2006 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, page 6). 207 Cf. Testimony offered by the Attorney Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria before notary public (affidavit) on June 18, 2009 (dossier of merits, volume IV, folio 1430). 208 Cf. Case of the Massacre of la Rochela v. Colombia, supra note 83, para. 156; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 24, para. 78, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para 154.