incident should have been kept, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, each time he made a verbal report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Thus, the domestic regulations at the time of the events provided a process to follow and established the actions to be taken by the State to address the threats received by Mr. Luna López, through an investigation of the facts. 131. In this respect, Article 207 of the Honduran Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time contemplated the crime of intimidation as an offence indictable by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.232 In particular, said article establishes the punishment of imprisonment for six months to two years for this crime and, in addition, the person convicted remains subject to any measures that the Judge may deem appropriate. For that reason, the Court considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office should have initiated the appropriate legal action against Mr. José Ángel Rosa based on the threat reported by Carlos Luna López. The complaint filed by Mr. Luna López before the Public Prosecutor should have been submitted to the Magistrates Court for the relevant action to be taken (infra para. 132). The decision on whether or not to continue this action would be then be taken by the Magistrate, and not exclusively by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In this sense, the legislation in force at the time of the events did not contemplate the recording of minutes on meetings of a conciliatory nature. For this reason, because threats constitute a crime “against freedom and security” under Title VI, Chapter V of the Honduran Penal Code, the process which should have been followed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office was established in the Code of Criminal Procedure described above. 132. The Court will also consider a second claim made by the State, indicating that the Prosecutor who received the complaint could have considered the act as an “offence” (as contemplated in Article 397 of the Penal Code in force), and not as a crime. 233 Under this assumption, Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that such an offence would result in a proceeding and should be notified to the Magistrate, who would summon the parties to a hearing, keep a record of the proceedings and issue a judgment.234 Therefore, also considering this assumption indicated by the State, the Prosecutor had the obligation to notify the Judge about the matter, and he, in turn, should have opened a record in response to the threat and subsequent complaint. This legal responsibility, established by Honduran legislation, was further accentuated by the state’s awareness of the nature of the threat and the fact that it was related to work carried out by a City Councilman in defense of the environment. 133. Moreover, the State argued that Article 33(3) of the Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office granted the Prosecution the authority to take no legal action when there is insufficient 3) The place, time, day and year the offence was committed; 4) The witnesses to the crime or acts related to it; and 5) The signature of applicant and if he/she does not have a signature, a fingerprint, as well as those of others where requested. […]”. 232 Criminal Code. Decree No. 144-83, published in the Official Gazette of Honduras on March 12, 1984, “Article 207. An individual who threatens to cause harm to another or to his family, to his person, honor or property, whether it constitutes a crime or not, shall be punished by imprisonment of six months to two years, together with any security measures that the Court may determine.” 233 Criminal Code, supra, “Article 397. A person who speaks in anger, threatens to cause harm to another which constitutes a crime and whose subsequent actions demonstrate that he no longer persists in the idea conveyed with the threat.” 234 Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, “Article 144. When the Magistrate finds that an offense has been committed that gives rise to a proceeding ex oficio through an accusation or complaint, after the first procedures for establishing the facts of the case, he will summon the suspect and the accuser […] to a hearing to be held with the parties, in which those interested will submit their claims, and will admit and examine the relevant evidence offered, adding the documents to the case file. The Judge will issue a ruling within three days.” 41