- 104 - Court considers that it has insufficient evidence to determine whether access to the domestic case files was obstructed. B.1.3 Investigation of all those responsible 291. The representatives and the Commission allege that the State failed to follow lines of investigation concerning: (i) the participation of federal agents, and (ii) the responsibilities of the chain of command. Meanwhile, the State indicated that “the FGEM charged all the persons identified by the SCJN as possible participants in the sexual abuse that occurred against the eleven victims in this case,” and noted that “the SCJN only identified […] police agents of the state of Mexico as possible participants, and not federal agents […] because the transfer of those who had been arrested […] was solely the responsibility of authorities of the state of Mexico.” In addition, it argued that, “by its investigations, it had complied with the identification of different levels of responsibility, including each and every one of the authorities involved in the chain of command,” and that “the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to prove the hypothesis that, during the operation, an order had been given to attack […] the protesters.” 292. This Court has established that States have the obligation to conduct an investigation, using all available legal means and aimed at determining the truth, and the pursuit, capture, prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible, whatever their participation in the facts.394 Thus, they should avoid omission in following logical lines of investigation,395 to ensure the proper analysis of the presumptions of responsibility resulting from the investigation. 396 Accordingly, in order to determine whether a State has complied with its obligation to investigate all those criminally responsible, this Court has referred to the need to analyze: (i) the existence of evidence of the participation of those presumed to be responsible, and (ii) whether there was diligence or negligence in the investigation of this evidence. 397 293. In this case, the Court notes that several of the women victims in this case recounted that they had suffered different forms of violence and abuse at the hands of federal agents 398 when they were detained and handed over to state agents who transferred them. 399 Consequently, the Court considers that there was sufficient evidence to oblige the State to investigate the responsibility of federal agents for the facts that are the purpose this case. Regarding the State’s conduct, the Court has already noted that the FEVIM investigation was not executed with due Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 177, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 151. 394 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 158, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 85. 395 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 96, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 85. 396 Cf. Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 94, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, paras. 240 to 242. 397 The SCJN established in its judgment that approximately 194 agents of the state Security Agency and 154 agents of the Federal Preventive Police participated on May 3, 2006, while, 1,815 state police agents and around 700 federal agents took part on May 4. Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 25). 398 CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29201, 29921, 29922, 29781, 28923, 28924, 29390, 29996, 29997 and 29140). 399