32. In connection with the context described by the petitioners, the State refutes the existence of any support for a policy of extrajudicial killings against a given social group in the country. It holds that the State cannot be held guilty for the killings of different environmental activists “and neither can it be seen, in any way or form, as having any responsibility for their deaths.” 33. It contends that there is no widespread situation of impunity in those cases because convictions have been handed down against the perpetrators of crimes against ecologists in Honduras. It adds that those convictions are issued regardless of the social condition or political contacts of the perpetrators. 34. Honduras states that in all cases, including those involving violent acts by private citizens, the steps necessary to punish the guilty are taken promptly. It says that it is “not in a position to provide a different level of security to people who work to protect ecological property, since that would violate the principle of equality and create privileged classes, which is forbidden by the Constitution.” 35. Regarding the merits of the case at hand, the State acknowledges that Mr. Escaleras Mejía “was one of the most prominent social leaders in the Aguán valley (…) and served as the head of several organizations.” 36. Honduras states that is unknown “whether as a consequence of his activities he was targeted with threats by certain companies, after reporting them for harming the environment and ecosystem of the Aguán valley by dumping toxic substances in the rivers, particularly companies belonging to Mr. Miguel Facussé.” It adds that it does not know whether Mr. Escaleras was a victim of pressure and threats or received offers of money. 37. It also states that on the very day of Carlos Escaleras’s murder, four suspects were arrested. It reports that after various formalities were pursued, it was found that they had not participated in the crime. It adds that after further inquiries and formalities, a conviction was handed down against two perpetrators. 38. It notes that although charges were brought against several individuals during the proceedings, some were acquitted while others received irrevocable dismissals. On this point, Honduras explains that “if a judge finds that an accused has no responsibility in the facts and acquits him or dismisses him from the proceedings, he does so in accordance with his own convictions (…) and the parties only have the right to appeal that decision using the remedies provided by Honduran law.” It notes that the record shows that the Court of Appeal in La Ceiba overturned some of the decisions adopted by the first-instance court. 39. The State contends that as indicated by the case record, a serious and exhaustive investigation was carried out. It holds that there was no unjustified delay in the trial; rather, that the prosecution service and the courts acted with due responsibility and dispatch, respecting the guarantees and the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic. 40. The State contends that this criminal trial was complex, and so a greater amount of time was needed for the investigation. It says that “to a large extent we lack the scientific means for casting light on complex crimes, and even those countries with economic capacity and scientific procedures never resolve or conclude a complete investigation in order to punish the intellectual and material perpetrators of a criminal act.” It adds that if the investigations did not yield the results expected by the petitioners, that was because of the complexity of the crime that was committed and because “in Honduras the assumption of innocence is the rule.” 41. It its submission dated September 1, 2006, Honduras states that: It is aware of the various shortcomings in the investigation into the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Carlos Escaleras Mejía; those shortcomings have meant that the judicial guarantees of Mr. Escaleras and his family have not received due protection, and for that 5