24. The State contends that various judicial proceedings related to the allegations of the petitioners are under way at the request of the Ministerio Público [Office of Public Prosecutor]. It further claims that the code of criminal procedure (Decree No. 189-94) does not in any article establish that cases are closed because of the time elapsed, and that therefore investigations are continuing. 25. It states that according to criminal procedure, the judge is in charge of these formalities, and that the Ministerio Público acts only after the full proceedings have been opened. The State contends that this is the result of the previous system of inquiries, which has been changed now to the accusatory system, under which it is possible to strike a better balance between the stages of a legal proceeding. It further explains that under the previous system, the judge did not have the inputs that the Ministerio Público has at the present time, which affects the case in question, but that nonetheless the judge acted with due diligence. 26. It argues that on the basis of the laws at the time, Saúl Benjamín Mejía gave a statement on January 20 2004, and that this statement enabled the minor implicated in the crime, Juan Francisco López Mejía, to be released, since he was pressured by the chief of police of Tela, who went so far as to threaten him with death, to confess to being one of the murderers. 27. The State asserts that on the basis of that declaration, the involvement of the police chief was investigated. The investigation led to a village named Esparta, where one of the persons who had planned the murder of the alleged victim, nicknamed “El Tigre,” was living. 28. The State maintains that, according to the testimony of Benjamín Mejía, the perpetrator of the crime had acted in collusion with other wealthy persons from the area in planning the crime. The main reason was the alleged victim’s opposition to development of tourism in the bay of Tela, a zone protected as a National Park. The State further contends that the brother of the alleged victim, despite being the prosecutor’s liaison for investigation of the crime, did not assist the prosecution with the corresponding investigation, since he omitted important relevant information. 29. The State further alleges that on March 3, 2004, at the request of the Ministerio Público, the Juzgado de Letras Seccional [court of first instance] with headquarters in Tela issued a warrant for the arrest of Ismael Perdomo for the crimes of abuse of authority and coercion, to the detriment of the public administration and witnesses Alex Dencen Andino, Sabas Gómez, Juan Gómez, and Juan Francisco López. The state adds that Mario Pineda, a Guatemalan citizen who is suspected of acting as an instigator of the murder, gave a statement. 30. The State also holds that in view of the foregoing, the investigation stage is still in process under the prior procedural law (1984 Code of Criminal Procedure) and that is why the proceedings have not been closed, since that is not permitted under the referenced legislation. 31. The State further maintains that in order for criminal proceedings in the present case to lapse under statutes of limitations, a period longer than the maximum sentence for the crime in question must have elapsed, and in this case that would be in excess of twenty years (in accordance with Articles 96.6, 97.1, and 117 of the Criminal Code). 32. It argues that the State of Honduras cannot be held responsible for malicious crimes committed by individual criminals, whose liability will be determined by the administration of justice, which requires the cooperation of the victim’s next of kin, a situation which the State claims is not present in this case. 33. Based on all the aforesaid arguments, the Honduran State requests that the petition be declared inadmissible, on the grounds that there is still an investigation in process and that all the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted. III. ANALYSIS 4