case forward at the different levels of the proceedings, file a great deal of motions and requests before different authorities without receiving any response and face the consequences of a court proceeding that was not conducted with seriousness or impartiality. They argued that,because of their actions, they and their direct family circle received threats and attempts on their lives and that their attorneys were the targets of disciplinary investigations. 27. Accordingly, they claimed that they filed complaints of threats and harassment on February 19, March 10 and November 30, 1998, June 28, 1999 and April 7, 2006. In these written complaints, Mr. Ortiz’s parents identified the following individuals and family groups, who they regarded could be at risk: Mr. and Mrs.Mary Ramos and Alans Peralta (Johan Alexis’ godparents), and the following families: Ortiz González, Ortiz Ruiz, Ortiz Flores, Ortiz Rivas, Gamez Ortiz, Moreno Ortiz, Hernández Hernández, Hernández Rugeles, Hernández Bustillos, Herrera Hernández, Cárdenas Hernández, Arellano Hernández. B. State 28. During the merits phase, the State submitted several communications regarding the friendly settlement process, reporting on measures taken by it to satisfy the proposals put forward by the petitioners. Subsequently, it filed a submission with observations mentioning proceedings conducted in the domestic sphere to elucidate events pertaining to the death of Johan Alexis Ortizand the criminal proceedings instituted for this purpose;4however, it did not put forward any specific arguments on the charges alleged in the case. 29. The State noted that the domestic criminal proceeding had been instituted in the military courts under the Code of Criminal Prosecution in force at the time in 1998, and subsequently, when the Organic Criminal Procedural Code came into force, the Ministry of Public Criminal Prosecution filed charges against five military officials for crimes of “negligent homicide” and “disobeying military orders;” and that the parents of the alleged victim brought a private criminal suit (querella) against nine military officials. It indicated that that the charges were dismissed by the trial court and that the Court Martial of the Republic, as the “maximum court of military law,” overturned said decision and ordered new charges to be brought. 30. It contended that, after the “extensive judicial activity” displayed, the parents of Mr. Ortiz appealed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which on June 11, 2002, ordered the entire proceedings over the course of four years in the Venezuelan military courts to be vacated and transferred jurisdiction to the civilian courts to institute new trial proceedings. 31. The State reported on a number of steps taken in the investigation to gather evidence, before the Ministry of Public Prosecution issued a charging document regarding the acts connected to the death of Johan Alexis Ortiz. In this regard, it recounted steps aimed at “obtaining evidence to clarify the facts,” such as successfully collecting the “daily log book of incidents,” the “operations order” and the “anti-subversive combat training obstacle course instruction” for the First Anti-Subversive Combat Training Coursefor the students belonging to the class of the28th Course of the “Major General Victor Anselmo Fernandez” National Guard Training Academy; the “service order” carried out by the Military University Institute of Technology of the National Guard; and the “Current Garrison Service Regulations” were also obtained. 4 This information is complementary to the information submitted during the admissibility phase, in which the State reported on the status of the domestic investigations and judicial proceedings to clarify the facts. In this regard, during the admissibility phase, the State filed two pleadings on December 12, 2002 and October 26, 2004. See: IACHR, Report No. 22/05. Petition 12.270, Admissibility, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández v. Venezuela, February 25, 2005, para. 7. Said reports also contain information about the actions taken by the Ministry of Public Prosecution, the body that conducted the investigation into the incidents, led by the 7th Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Judicial District of the State of Tachira and the 18th Office of the National Prosecuting Attorney, as noted on October 26, 2004. On said occasion, the State reported on requests made by the Ministry of Public Prosecution that same day, to the Chief of the Command of Personnel of the National Guard and to the Commanding Officers of several Military Outposts in the cities of San Antonio del Tachira, Barinas, Valera and Guasdualito, for several military officers to appear before the authorities to provide a sworn statement; as well as requests made to the Corps of Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations (CICPC), to collect other pieces of evidence, including drawing up a diagram, conducting ballistic trajectory tests and on-site inspection of the location where the incidents took place.