formalism and impunity and must deal with judicial appeals in a manner that restricts the disproportionate use of actions that might have dilatory or undermining effects. 237 The authorities, in turn, must abstain from actions that would obstruct the investigatory process.238 211. The State must ensure that the competent authorities conduct the relevant investigations ex officio and have at their disposal the necessary powers and resources,239 including logistical and scientific, to gather and process the evidence, as well as to have full access to the pertinent documentation and information and to conduct the essential actions and inquiries to clarify what happened to the disappeared persons and to the victims of extrajudicial executions.240 The authorities must avoid omissions in considering and evaluating the evidence and in following the logical lines of investigation. Each State official is obligated to collaborate in the collection of evidence in order to provide the judge of the case with all the required information and to abstain from acts that would imply the obstruction of the investigative proceedings. 241 212. The State must, to the extent necessary, adopt all appropriate diplomatic and judicial measures to prosecute and punish those responsible for violations, fostering by all possible means the extradition requests that are admissible under the domestic norms or the pertinent international law. Uruguay and the other States Parties to the American Convention should collaborate among themselves to eliminate impunity for the violations committed in this case by prosecuting and punishing those responsible.242 213. The State must also ensure that the victims’ next of kin have full access and the capacity to act during all stages of the investigation and the prosecution of those responsible.243 Those persons, as well as others who participate in the investigations such as witnesses and justice operators, must be provided the necessary security guarantees.244 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance of judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 19, 2020, considering paragraph 10. 237 238 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 254. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 174; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 211; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, para. 237-c, Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 256-c. and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations, para. 255. 239 Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 556. 240 241 Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 233. 242 Similarly, Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 166. Cf. Case of the Caracazo vs. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, para. 238 and Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 257 and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 256. 243 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 174; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 211; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, para. 237-c; Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 256-c and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 255. 244 55