warnings and threats, urging him to abandon his struggle for the right of the population to a healthy environment. They add that he was also pressured to withdraw his candidacy for the position of mayor of Tocoa municipality. 16. They claim that in spite of this context in which environmentalist activists were being killed and he was receiving threats, the State took no reasonable measures to prevent what ultimately occurred to Mr. Escaleras. On the contrary, they maintain, the State tolerates a systematic pattern of harassment, threats, and killings against environmental activists. They further hold that the lack of an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation into the death of Carlos Escaleras also constituted a violation of its duty of protecting his right to life. 17. In addition, the petitioners allege that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection in that, in their view, the proceedings initiated following Carlos Escaleras’s death have not been effective, serious, timely, or suitable for revealing the truth behind his murder or for punishing all the physical perpetrators of the crime and the masterminds behind it. 18. They report that on the same day that Carlos Escaleras was murdered, four people were arrested with no evidence against them. They state that it was not until two and a half years later that the prosecutor in charge of the case acknowledged that they were not involved in the crime. The petitioners claim that this delay caused an unnecessary and excessive holdup in the proceedings because no investigation was conducted to identify the real perpetrators. 19. The petitioners contend that during the investigation, the police and the prosecution service showed a clear lack of interest in identifying the real perpetrators of the murder and the masterminds behind it. They claim that the few formalities pursued were not done either immediately or correctly, which had a serious effect on the evidence. For instance, they claim there was a significant delay in conducting a judicial inspection at the scene of the crime. 20. They hold that numerous steps that would have helped identify and punish all the guilty – as required by the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court and by the United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions – were not taken. Among other shortcomings they identified the following: (i) no photographs were taken of the position of Mr. Escaleras’s body following the murder; (ii) the case file contains no record of the autopsy; and (iii) the ballistic examination of the projectiles found in the victim’s body is not accredited. 21. They state that the masterminds behind the crime were not punished. They point out that impunity still surrounds the incident, in spite of the State’s obligation of investigating and punishing all the people responsible. They claim that there was an unwarranted delay in justice because the two material perpetrators were only sentenced many years after the incident and because, in spite of the evidence that exists, none of the other perpetrators or masterminds have been punished. 22. The petitioners report that during the proceedings, statements were not taken from several witnesses, in spite of the requests made by the civil complainant and by the prosecutor. They claim that evidence that would have been of great use in casting light on the murder was not ordered, collected, or assessed. They also contend that although a notebook reportedly containing information on the perpetrators of the murder was found during a search, the court failed to take it into account. 23. They emphasize the unjustified delay that occurred in investigating and punishing all the guilty. They contend that the proceedings were not complex since they involved a single crime and a single victim. They further state that the number of accused was not excessive and that with diligent actions, that purported difficulty could have been resolved. They note that the members of Mr. Escaleras’s family have remained ready to assist the proceedings. In spite of this, they claim, there was a high level of judicial inactivity, including a period of more than one year during which no formalities were carried out. 3