Félix Ordóñez Suazo; (b) the investigations and criminal proceedings derived from his death, and (c) due diligence and a reasonable time in relation to the criminal complaints filed at the domestic level for the offenses of usurpation, threats and abuse of authority. A. The alleged violation of the right to life of Félix Ordóñez Suazo A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 257. The representatives indicated in their pleadings and motions brief that “in different documents, the State recognized the existence of a dangerous situation for the members of Punta Piedra community and did nothing to prevent the violent acts that resulted in the violation [of the right to life].” They argued that “the element of arbitrariness contemplated in Article 4 [of the Convention] is found in the State’s omission to investigate the complaints and resolve the conflict satisfactorily.” Therefore, the representatives considered that, “by acquiescence and omission, the Honduran State incurred in arbitrariness, and should therefore be declared internationally responsible for having violated Article 4 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention.” Likewise, in their final written arguments, they indicated that “[t]he factual framework established by the [Commission] in its Merits Report indicates that, for reasons directly related to the defense of the land, Félix Ordóñez was murdered at a fairly advanced and [tense] moment of the conflict, and due to the State's inaction and, even, its position in favor of the settlers; therefore, it had not protected the life of the leaders and, for this reason, [they] consider[ed] that the State had violated Article 4 of the [American Convention].” 258. In its Merits Report, the Commission did not rule specifically on the violation of Article 4 of the Convention to the detriment of Félix Ordóñez Suazo. 278 However, during the public hearing of the case, it indicated that “the death of Félix Ordóñez forms part of the factual framework of the Merits Report [and] legal consequences had been determined in the section on judicial protection among the different remedies that the Commission examined; therefore, the Court would be fully authorized to rule on Article 4 if it so wishes.” Subsequently in its final written observations, it indicated that “the members of the community have been unable to live peacefully in their territory. To the contrary, the tensions with the settlers and other third parties have created a situation of risk to life and personal integrity for the members of the community, and the murder of one of its members, Félix Ordóñez, took place in this context.” 259. The State in its answering brief did not refer specifically to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention. However, it indicated that “[i]n relation to the death of Félix Ordóñez […] the case has been filed before the courts and an arrest warrant issued against the person allegedly responsible; therefore, it is not appropriate for the Inter-American Court to rule on an ongoing case.” During the public hearing, the State indicated that “[t]he death of Félix Ordóñez in 2007 was an isolated fact, a result of an altercation with another Honduran.” The Court noted that the facts related to the said violations were brought to the Commission’s attention and notified to the State for its respective observations. Cf. Brief of the petitioners presented to the Commission on June 14, 2007 (evidence file, folios 788 and 789); communication of the Commission requesting the State to provide information of June 15, 2007 (evidence file, folio 787) and State’s brief presented to the Commission on July 3, 2007 (evidence file, folios 697 and 698). 278 74