242. To the contrary, the investigation focused initially on collecting information on the victim’s criminal record, without any observations regarding the possible connection between the events that led to his death and the incorporation of that information into the case file. 243. The Court also notes that the loss of the case file in the offices of the Public Prosecution Service was reported; despite this there is no record of any clarification with regard to where it was located. This is also revealed by the fact that, in 2005, the Prosecutor requested that procedures be conducted that had already been ordered years before. This probative material should be part of the case file, so that it would not have been necessary to request it again. However, in July 2005, following more than five years without any procedures being recorded, the Directorate for the Protection of Human Rights tried to locate the case file and obtain the necessary information to take action. 244. Lastly, the State has indicated that an arrest warrant has been issued for the individuals accused, despite which, they are still at large. The evidence in the case file reveals that only one of them was arrested in August 2011 (supra para. 198). The Court considers that it is not sufficient that the State merely indicates that an arrest warrant exists to justify the lack of progress in the case; rather it must prove that effective measures were taken. 245. Consequently, the Court concludes that the authorities did not act with due diligence in the investigation of the death of Benito Antonio Barrios. Therefore, the State violated the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Article 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Justina Barrios, Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, Carlos Alberto Ortuño and Eloisa Barrios.363 2. Investigation of the searches, destruction and theft at the homes of Justina Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García and Luis Alberto Barrios 246. In the investigation of these incidents, relevant procedures were not conducted immediately to ascertain the facts (supra para. 234) – above all considering that the incidents involved private homes – so that the prompt and thorough collection of evidence could have prevented its loss. 247. Although an investigation was opened into the searches of two homes, on several occasions it was indicated that searches had occurred in another two homes, those of Elbira and Justina Barrios (supra para. 200), and there is no evidence that the last two were taken into account in the investigations in the case of the first two after the authorities had been informed that the incidents at the four homes had taken place on the same day and were attributed to the same authorities. 248. The Court also notes that, from December 2003 to February 2005, no steps were taken to clarify the facts. In addition, five years after the incidents, the Prosecutor requested information on the police officials at the Penitas Police Station, a measure requested by the Barrios family’s lawyer. Nevertheless, this information is not included in his decision to archive the prosecution’s case, which was issued three days after the request. In addition, in 2008, the Prosecutor ordered that the statements of several police agents be taken, without any evidence that this was done. The case file also shows that, in February 2007 and 2008, the Twentieth Prosecutor requested the logbooks of the San 363 Cf. Application for amparo filed by Eloisa Barrios on June 16, 2004, supra note 239. 83