101 When the investigation was transferred to the Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor’s Office on December 3, 2004, the line of investigation into paramilitary involvement was established from the beginning, without looking into other lines of investigation.499 This causes concern for the IACHR, as it finds it to be proven fact that at the time of the incidents there was collusion between the public security forces and paramilitary operations in the zone of Comuna 13.500 The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner has noted as well its concern over the impunity that has tended to shroud most of these abuses, particularly with regard to criminal liability of public servants in being linked to paramilitary groups; and this concern is shared by the IACHR.501 347. In view of these considerations, the IACHR has no evidence before it indicating that all possible lines have been explored in the investigation related to the assassination of Ms. Yarce, or that all the planners and direct perpetrators of the acts have been identified and sanctioned. The duty to prevent and to protect women human rights defenders such as Ms. Yarce from violent acts is accompanied by a reinforced duty to pursue an investigation into her assassination with diligence and without delay, taking into consideration the specific risks of human rights violations that women human rights defenders suffer in a complex context of armed conflict known to the Colombian State; and the array of actors involved in that conflict. The IACHR has also said that states’ obligation to investigate and punish pertains not only to the persons who participate in committing violations of the rights of those persons who dedicate their lives to defending human rights, but also extends to all those persons who participate in planning human rights violations directed against human rights defenders.502 348. The IACHR does not have enough information available to be able to conclude that the investigation into the murder of Ms. Yarce is being pursued by the State under the criteria mentioned above. Almost eight years have elapsed since Ms. Yarce’s murder, and her next of kin have not learned the truth of what happened to her. 349. In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and due process and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligation to respect rights without any discrimination, as established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Mrs. Yarce. It also concludes that the State violated Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the prejudice of the next of kin of Ms. Yarce, identified as Mónica Dulfari Orozco Yarce (daughter), Shirley Vanessa Yarce (daughter), Jhon Henry Yarce (son), Arlex Efrén Yarce (son, deceased), and James Adrian Yarce (son, deceased). 2. Investigation into the threats, forced displacement, and destruction of the residence of Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas and her next of kin 499 Annex 65. Decision to Transfer Investigation from the Second Unit for Crimes against Life and Personal Integrity of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, to the Human Rights Unit of the same body, December 3, 2004. Criminal proceeding on the murder of Mrs. Ana Teresa Yarce. 500 IACHR, Report on the Demobilization Process in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.120 Doc. 60, December 13, 2004, par. 96. 501 United Nations, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, 2002 Annual Report 2002, February 24, 2003, par. 77. 502 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 66, December 31, 2011, para. 45.