participation” in the attack. It indicated that “[it] was up to the State to carry out a thorough, meaningful and diligent investigation about possible government involvement [...] before archiving the investigation.” Despite the foregoing, the State ordered the closure of the case, "suspend[ing] the investigative procedures” without “pursuing logical lines of inquiry,” and without taking “performing procedures that might lead to the identification of those responsible and, most particularly, without seriously examining the possible involvement of State authorities.” Consequently, it considered that the decision to archive the case was unjustified. In this context, it said that the delay of “more than seven years” without clarification of the circumstances implied a delay that “in itself, unreasonable and unjustified.” 136. The representatives pointed out that according to the Minnesota Protocol, there are certain procedures that must be followed so that the investigation of a violent death is properly handled. They stated that t]he violation of the duty of due diligence, has materialized, among other things, given the inactivity of the judicial authorities in carrying out basic actions in a timely manner that could have pointed to the perpetrators and masterminds of the event, as well as the absence of an investigation that from the beginning, should have been investigated regarding the existence of the manner of death for hire and the alleged involvement of irregular armed groups, organized crime, and/or agents of the State. 137. Among the procedures not carried out by the State, the representatives included: “the failure to analyze the bullet trajectory and carry out ballistic comparison tests”, and “the lack of coordination between various judicial agencies,” as well as “non-compliance with measures of protection in favor of Yelitze Lisbeth Moreno and her son”, ordered by the Commission, “the failure to monitor and capture suspects” and “the absence of logical lines of inquiry” that took into account the context in which the events occurred or the “modus operandi [of] certain actors”. They mentioned the lack of an investigation regarding judicial processes in Colombia, particularly on statements made soon after the attack against Joe Luis Castillo, by paramilitary leaders such as “Carlos Castaño [and] Salvatore Mancuso […]concerning the massacre of La Gabarra and other violent incidents.” They also denounced the failure to question a survivor of the police confrontation of November 20, 2003. They emphasized that lines of inquiry relating to regarding paramilitary involvement and even that of State agents in the attack were dismissed. In this regard, they stated that [t]he prosecutors of the Attorney General’s Office had [...] from the beginning, accurate information about the names of the members of the paramilitary group [...] [and] could have interviewed [...] a National Guard member who collaborated with the group. In spite of having received all this information, which included the identification of specific local government officials as potential partners in crime. 138. The representatives concluded that “[t]he closure of the case was ordered due to lack of evidence, a situation created by the lack of a proper investigation.” They added that the authorities did not notify Mrs. Moreno, in a formal and timely manner, of the decision to archive the case. Along with the Commission, they pointed out that given the time elapsed and the continued impunity in the case, the requirement of reasonableness in the proceedings was impaired. 139. The representatives added that they were not allowed access to the records of the proceeding in the criminal case. They reported that “from the case file handled by the 20th Prosecutor’s Office, they obtained copies, but under reservation, and this did not include the order to archive the investigation.” As for the case file of the 83rd Prosecutor’s Office, they reported that despite several requests, they were unable to obtain copies, and “did not have visual access [to the record] until 2007.” They stated that this contravenes an element of 35