72 7.1. Ordinary Criminal Proceedings 246. The Commission has proven that two criminal proceedings had been filed and processed because the next of kin of the victims had filed complaints: i) one referred to the disappearances of Leonidas Cardona Giraldo and Andrés Gallego Castaño; and ii) the other alleged victims. In the case file, it is also observed that these proceedings were suspended when they continued in one proceeding under the Law for Justice and Peace. 7.1.1. Due diligence in the initial proceedings 247. The Court has provided that, every time the State conducts an investigation because of the alleged perpetration of a crime, it must make sure that it is “oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”370 To ensure this, the investigation must be conducted by all legal means available371 and must be conducted with due diligence, effectively, soundly and impartially.372 248. In that respect, the IACHR draws attention to the fact that, from the beginning of the proceedings, the States are required to act diligently.373 That is because the first inquiries of the investigation are key components “for an appropriate development of the judicial investigation, especially in face of a fact that has cost a person’s life.”374 249. Thus, in the present case, it must be examined whether the State conducted investigations with due diligence to identify those responsible for events by gathering evidence and other persuasive elements. Regarding this, it must be stressed that this duty of due diligence extends to other investigative activities prior to court proceedings, because it is not possible to conduct proceedings efficiently and effectively if the investigative phase has not been carried out with the characteristics mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Thus, the Court indicated that: “All these requirements, together with criteria of independence and impartiality also extend to the non-judicial bodies responsible for the investigation prior to the judicial.”375 370 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paragraph 101. 371 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto and others v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101. 372 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 146; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 130. 373 Corte IDH. Case of Zambrano Vélez and others v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 121. 374 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paragraph 167. IACHR, Report No. 37/00, Case 11.481, Merits, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez v. El Salvador, April 13, 2000, paragraph 85. 375 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 133.