194. In relation to the actions of the victim’s family, even though in this case the investigation is an ex officio obligation of the State, the victims have assumed an active role in the investigations. In this regard, it is worth noting that from the outset of the investigation, they rendered their testimonies identifying the individuals who had previously threatened Mr. Luna López. They also brought to the proceeding persons who in turn had important information on the murder and those responsible.291 From the evidence available, it is clear that they participated actively in the process, without hindering it or being denied access to the file. Furthermore, they helped to further the judicial proceedings through various briefs and requests formulated by the prosecutors working on the case, from the start of the investigations to the recent dates. 195. Finally, with respect to the fourth element, namely the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of those involved, the Court considers, as it has done previously, that in this case it is not necessary to analyze this point to determine the reasonableness of the time taken by these investigations.292 196. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, having regard to the complexity and particular circumstances of this case, the State has not exceeded the reasonable time period in the investigation of the facts, in relation to Article 8 of the Convention. B.3. General Conclusion 197. The Court concludes that, since the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means, there is no evidence in this case to show that the State failed to conduct a serious and exhaustive investigation to establish the facts, and within a reasonable period of time, according to the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court considers that the State is not internationally responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. VIII RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 291 Among other proceedings, file No. 1128-98 on concerning the action filed against Oscar Rodríguez Molina, contained information on the efforts made by the legal representative of the Luna family, specifically: a request for an expert opinion on Mr. Oscar Rodríguez to establish whether he suffered a physical impediment in his lower extremities, because several of the eyewitnesses indicated that the accused “did not walk normally” (Application of January 3, 2000, page 259 of file 1128/98). Additionally, an application to include evidence obtained in the preliminary phase (page 260 of file 1128/98) and request for the testimony of Mr. Álvaro Danilo Zapata (page 264 of file 1128/98) (Merits file, page 193, footnote 357). Likewise, the attorney Lobo who, referring to the statement rendered by the accused Oscar Rodríguez on June 15, 2004, incriminating Messrs. Alberto Isidoro Cáliz, Fredy Noel Salgado Guiffarro, Alejandro Fredy Salgado Carmona and Adán Orellana in the murder of Luna, requested the warrant for the arrest of these persons; however, his request was ruled inadmissible because it did not establish that “a logical and concatenated link [could] be established to indicate that a close relationship […]attributed to them existed." Cf. Request for an arrest warrant of September 2004, and the response of the Civil Court on December 15, 2004, pages 587 and 591. Annexes 66 and 67 to the Report on Merits 100/11 of the ICHR (Merits file, page 193, footnote 358). Cf. Final pleadings of the representatives “Mr. César Luna has made efforts to secure the arrest warrant, that was signed on February 20, 2013, and consequently its execution” (File of attachments of the report on Merits, page 1045). 292 Cf. Case of Garibaldi, supra, para. 138 and Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 284. 59