However, the IACHR notices that the investigation was suspended in several occasions. It was suspended for the first time on June 5, 1996, due to the lack of evidence.66 The file contains the resolution of October 24, 1996, by which the UDC revoked the suspension of the investigation and ordered new proceedings67, which were carried out since April, 1997. 68 On December 11, 2001, the UDH ordered once again the suspension of the preliminary investigation due to the impossibility of identifying the persons responsible for the crime69. On January 17, 2006, the specialized Prosecutor No. 23 of the UDH resumed the investigation and ordered to carry out proceedings. 70 Likewise, the record contains copies of the actions carried out in the context of the disciplinary investigation incorporated in the criminal investigation on April 15, 1994, 71 on November 14, 1996,72 and on April 19, 2000.73 42. According to the petitioners, the last proceedings were carried out on December 12, 2015, when Deicy Liliana Mondragón was called to declare, who was Mr. Pabón’s partner. 74 However, the State indicated that during 2016, the General Prosecutor’s Office settled a date and time to take statements and testimonies, as well as the conduction of a judicial inspection.75 The State does not specify the type of inspection nor the place. The State informed the IACHR that Mr. Pabón made a statement on July 8, 2016, before the General Prosecutor’s Office. 43. As regards the constitution of the petitioners as a civil party, the IACHR observes that the General Prosecutor’s Office did not accept the requests concluding that “still, the order for opening the evidence period has not been issued, which means that it is still in a preliminary stage, in which case the civil party does not operate (...).”76 The Commission observes that on January 21, 2003, the petitioners submitted a claim to appear in person as a civil party before the UDH (appealing to the right based on the constitutional jurisprudence of 2002), however, such request was dismissed once again on May 15, 2003, by not proving the determination of heirship of Candelaria Vergara, as stipulated by the procedural criminal law. It was only on September 13, 2011, after their constitution as a civil party in the process,77 that it agreed to the examination of evidence requested by the petitioners.78 44. The proceedings carried out throughout the criminal investigation are summarized below. Annex X. Petitioners’ communication of June 15, 2016. Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. UDH Resolution of October 24, 1996. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 68 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Official note to the Technical Investigation Force by the National Directorate of Prosecutors’ Offices, Human Rights Unit. April 8, 1997. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 69 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Resolution of the Specialized Prosecutor U.D.H of December 11, 2001, in which he concluded that “taking into account that until the present date, more than 180 days have passed since the issuance of the resolution to open the proceeding of a preliminary investigation, it results relevant to apply what it is set forth in Article 326 of the C.P.P., since it has not been possible to establish, identify or individualize any person as alleged author or participant in the events.” By a clerk’s certificate of January 11, 2002, regarding such resolution, the prosecutor overseeing the case was informed that “this resolution was not complied with on the part of the undersigned due to the fact that Art.326 of the C.P.P was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court by judgment C-760 of July 19, 2001. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 70 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Decree/resolution specialized Prosecutor’s office No. 23 takes over this case and orders the examination of evidence. January 17, 2006. Annex to petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 71 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Official communication of PGN with certified copy of the record 008-139893. April 15, 1994. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 72 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. General communication to PGN requesting copies of the proceedings taking place in the process 008-139893. November 14, 1996. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 73 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Official communication to refer the record by the PGN. December 19, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 74 Annex X. Petitioners’ communication of June 15, 2016. 75 Annex X. State’s communication of November 16, 2017. 76 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Resolution of the General Prosecutor’s Office in response to the right of petition submitted by Reinaldo Villalba Vargas. July 14, 2000. Annex to petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012; in the same sense, Annex 94. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. 096. Resolution of the General Prosecutor’s Office in response to the right of petition submitted by Reinaldo Villalba Vargas. July 3, 2001; Annex 95. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. 096. Resolution of the General Prosecutor’s Office of July 10, 2001. Annex to petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 77 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Resolution of the Specialized Prosecutor’s office No. 48 of the UDH of May 26, 2011. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 78 Annex X. General Prosecutor’s Office, Rad. No. 096. Decree of examination of evidence by the UDH. September 13, 2011. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of January 28, 2012. 66 67 11