Forces officers, and to negotiate the extradition of one of the accused officers. In addition, the proceedings had been characterized by long periods of inactivity. Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State of El Salvador had incurred in unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts concerning the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places and, thus, had violated the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 255. The Court observes that both the representatives and the Commission have indicated that, during the course of the investigations, State authorities incurred in a series of acts or omissions that have constituted a lack of due diligence and a denial of justice. The Court has verified that an assessment of the judicial case file and other documents in the body of evidence lead to the conclusion that, during the three years that the investigation remained open prior to the dismissal of the case in application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, a series of factual obstacles arose that have prevented the effective investigation, prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible. 256. First, the evidence in the instant case reveals that, although the testimony of some victims and witnesses was presented to the court (supra para. 212), judicial inspections and exhumations were performed (supra paras. 227 and 230 to 238), and an official communication was sent to the President and to the Minister of National Defense (supra para. 214), which confirms some investigative activity by the authorities responsible for conducting the investigations, all the measures that should have been taken in order to identify the possible authors of the events and, if appropriate, bring charges against them were not taken. In other words, the State was not diligent in gathering evidence that could identify those involved. The Court observes that, according to the proven facts, at least 1,000 to 1,500 soldiers took part in the perpetration of the massacres (supra para. 84), without counting other perpetrators, masterminds or participants. In addition, no measures were taken to inspect newspaper archives that might have provided information on those who participated in the military operations carried out in the place and on the date of the events, and did not incorporate into the investigations the corresponding sections of the report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador that indicate the names of some of the soldiers who took part in the operations.402 Indeed, both the March 1993 report of the Truth Commission403 and the investigations conducted by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado, which were made public in 1992,404 copies of which were provided to the case by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado in 2006,405 named the military units that participated in the operations, and also provided the names of some of the authorities in charge of them, permitting a list of participants in the massacres to be established, especially those that were in decision-making positions; however, this information was not used in any line of investigation and no member of the Armed Forces was indicted and summoned to testify. 257. In cases such as this, the Court has considered that the authorities in charge of the investigation have the obligation to ensure that, during the course of the investigation, they assess the systematic patterns that permitted the perpetration of grave human rights violations.406 In order to guarantee its effectiveness, the investigation must be conducted taking into account the complexity of this type of event, which occurred within the framework of 402 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 1992-1993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folios 2011 to 2018 and 2023). 403 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 1992-1993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folios 1196 to 1197 and 1201). 404 Cf. Report of Tutela Legal del Arzobispado entitled “Ejecución Masiva de Personas (arbitrarias and sumarias) en los caseríos El Mozote, Ranchería and Jocote Amarillo del cantón Guacamaya, en los cantones La Joya y Cerro Pando, del Municipio de Meanguera y en caserío Los Toriles del Municipio Arambala, todos del Departamento de Morazán por tropas del BIRI Atlacatl durante operativo militar – los días 11, 12 and 13 de diciembre 1981; hechos conocidos como ‘Masacre de El Mozote’” of July 23, 1992 (evidence file, tome II, annex 9 to the submission of the case, folios 1463 to 1535). 405 Cf. Brief of the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador of November 23, 2006 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.1 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 6929 to 6999). 406 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 156, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194. 84