Venezuela, especially in Aragua state, and (e) the Public Prosecution Service let the time expire for appealing the first instance judgment of September 4, 2014. 99. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s allegations and added that the investigation revealed flaws: (a) in gathering evidence from the autopsies performed on the victims, and (b) in the assessment of the evidence and the impossibility of gaining access to the expert appraisals and probative elements in the case file. Lastly, they referred to the failure to investigate the harassment of the family members during the proceedings and the murder of a witness during the investigations. 100. For its part, the State indicated that the investigation stage was conducted diligently and within the time frame established by law, and this was revealed by the fact that the Public Prosecution Service filed an indictment five months after the events occurred. Similarly, it noted that the Public Prosecution Service did investigate the violation of the right to life of the alleged victims and took numerous measures, including the provision of 87 probative elements. It also indicated that the Commission’s argument that the Criminal Cassation Chamber and the Appellate Court had recognized that relevant evidence had not been required during the investigation and that the assessment of the evidence was not duly justified was not correct. In addition, it asserted that the family members of the alleged victims had played an active role with the Public Prosecution Service in the investigation and had filed a complaint before the Supervisory Court, which they later withdrew. Therefore, the State considered that the argument that they had had difficulties to access the case file and to be taken into account in the proceedings was unfounded. Regarding the reports of the family that they had suffered threats, harassment and other arbitrary acts throughout the investigation, the State argued that it had provided measures of protection in favor of Dinora Diaz Loreto, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Alexandra Gualdrón and Enmary Dahina Cava, following a request made by the Public Prosecution Service. B. Considerations of the Court 101. Article 8(1) of the Convention recognizes that everyone has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial judge or court, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against them or for the determination of their rights, all under the general obligation of the States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention (Article 1(1)).121 In addition, the Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means rather than of results that must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victims or their families or upon their offer of evidence. 122 102. The Court will now refer to the arguments on the violation of the right to judicial guarantees in the following order: B.1. The alleged lack of due diligence in the investigation and in the criminal proceedings for the death of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez; B.2. The reasonable time for the investigation and criminal proceedings; B.3. Alleged lack of investigation and adoption of measures of protection for the family members of the alleged victims, and B.4. Conclusion. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 62, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352, para. 101. 121 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of Ruíz Fuente et al. v. Guatemala, para. 175. 122 -31-