presumably responsible for the illegal acts; that the pertinent sanctions be imposed, as appropriate, and that the damage suffered by the said next of kin be repaired.228 180. In addition, the Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate, together with the corresponding right of the next of kin, arises not only from the binding nature of the treaty obligations of international law for the States parties, but is also derived from domestic law relating to the obligation to investigate ex officio certain unlawful conducts and to the laws that allow the victims or their next of kin to file complaints or institute actions, present evidence or petitions, or take any other step, in order to play a procedural role in the criminal investigation so as to establish the truth about the events.229 181. Based on the above, this Court must determine whether the State has incurred in violations of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. To this end, the Court has established that the clarification of whether or not the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial organs may mean that the Court must examine the respective domestic proceedings.230 Thus, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may have to analyze the procedures that are related to and constitute a prerequisite for judicial proceedings, particularly the investigation procedures on the results of which the initiation and progress of the proceedings depend. Consequently, the Court will examine the different internal investigations and criminal proceedings instituted in this case, regarding which a violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection has been alleged, and will determine whether these rights have been violated. B. Arguments of the parties 182. The Inter-American Commission indicated that in “[a]ll the proceedings, […] the investigations have not been conducted with due diligence or within a reasonable time.” The facts “remain in a situation of impunity and the lack of rigor, seriousness and progress in the investigations is the common characteristic of all the cases.” In this regard, it underlined that 12 years had passed since the death of Benito Antonio Barrios, without clarification of the circumstances in which it occurred, or the punishment of those responsible. The Commission also referred to a series of irregularities and omissions in the investigations of the deaths of Benito Antonio Barrios, Narciso Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios, and Rigoberto Barrios. Regarding the latter, it added that, in the investigation into medical malpractice “the reasons why the victim was not operated on until five days after he had entered the hospital were not investigated diligently, or whether the lack of a timely blood transfusion was related to the victim’s death.” In addition, it considered that long periods of procedural inactivity had occurred in all the proceedings concerning the deaths of Benito Antonio and Narciso Barrios, without any reasons to justify the delay in the investigation, and adequate mechanisms had not been provided to establish whether the lethal use of force had been strictly necessary and proportionate in the case of confrontations with the police. Regarding the investigation into the deaths of Luis Alberto and Rigoberto Barrios, it indicated that the prosecution had failed to analyze the facts within the context in which they occurred and 228 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 130, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 220, para. 117. 229 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 104, and Case of Vera Vera et al., supra note 39, para. 86. 230 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 43, para. 222, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 220, para. 120. 59