65 authorities are not exempt from making all efforts necessary in complying with their obligation to investigate. 216. The Court has also warned that the obligation to investigate is maintained “whoever the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed is, even individuals, since, if their acts are not investigated seriously, they would result, in some way, assisted by the public power, which would compromise the State’s international responsibility.”223 217. From all the aforementioned, it results evident that the facts of the present case are in impunity, contrary to that argued by the State. The Court does not consider necessary any greater detail in this sense. b.2) Accumulation of the preliminary inquiry 218. The representatives stated that the transfer of the investigations to the General Investigation Coordination caused a delay in the investigations, since the case files were tended to “from their beginning” by agents of the Public Prosecutors’ Office who had different specializations. They also argued that said entity did not have enough administrative budget to carry out in full its investigation tasks. Finally, the representatives mentioned that the fact that 122 cases had been brought together since April 2006 (supra para. 188) “[i]mplied that diligences be carried out in each of these in a more sporadic manner, which can be concluded from the reading of the case file.” The Court points out that these arguments were not contested by the State. 219. However, the Court also observes that in the Evaluation Report on the Follow-up of Recommendation 026/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission, it refers to the fact that the General Investigation Coordination stated word by word to said instance that “[b]ased on the facts denounced with regard to Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, and 136 other people, preliminary inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/2007 […] is being processed; [and that] said cabinet investigation has brought together 122 inquiries, since the facts under investigation refer to those that occurred within the period from July 14th through 19, 1974, in the settlements of the Sierra Madre del Sur of the State of Guerrero, where it is probable that the disappearance of 137 persons occurred.”224 Said document also states that the General Investigation Coordination literally informed that “[i]n that investigation, the agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Federation has carried out different diligences tending to locate the whereabouts not only of a single person, but of any of those mentioned in the different accusations filed before the cabinet instance, among them Rosendo RadillaPacheco.”225 221. The Court reiterates that the due diligence in the investigation of the facts of the present case demands that the latter be carried out taking into account the complexity of the facts, the context in which they occurred, and the patterns that explain their commission (supra para. 146). In the Court’s opinion, the fact that the investigation of the arrest and 223 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 24, para. 174; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 78. 224 Cf. Report on the Evaluation of the Following of Recommendation 26/2001, National Human Rights Commission, of August 25, 2009 (dossier of appendixes, volume IX, folio 3062). 225 Cf. Report on the Evaluation of the Following of Recommendation 26/2001, National Human Rights Commission, of August 25, 2009 (dossier of appendixes, volume IX, folio 3063).