with disability. Judicial authorities in charge of processes involving persons with disabilities who do not taking all actions within their power are violating the right to a fair trial.40 40. For its part, United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has said States have an obligation to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. It has indicated that the necessary adjustments must be made to facilitate their participation as victims.41 This includes testifying as witnesses in all judicial procedures, including during the investigation and other preliminary stages.42 2. Analysis of the case 41. First of all, the Commission underscores that it is not within its authority to make determinations as to the criminal responsibility of individual persons who may be involved of the facts of this case. The analysis performed hereinafter will focus on determining whether the investigation and criminal process in this case were conducted in adherence to corresponding Inter-American standards on the rights to fair trial and judicial protection, described above. 42. In this case, the Commission observes that Mr. Aguirre, an individual with a physical disability, filed a criminal complaint with judicial authorities over the incidents that took place on November 13, 1993. Mr. Aguirre alleged that the serious injuries he suffered were the results of the explosion of a grenade that the owner and driver of the vehicle, Francisco Reynaldo Castillo Borja, Justice of the Peace of Villa de Apaneca, had in his possession. As the State itself has noted, the law in force at the time establish that it was the judicial authority, not the Office of the Public Prosecutor, that was in charge of “moving” and “directing the process.” 43. In this regard, the IACHR takes note of a series of elements indicating omissions and irregularities in the investigation, establishing the facts, and moving the criminal process forward. First, the Commission underscores that according to the documentation submitted, the judicial authority initially in charge of the process limited itself to conducting visual inspections concluding that the explosion of the vehicle was the result of an M-67 grenade and that "it exploded from inside to outside the vehicle.” It also indicated that the vehicle was almost entirely destroyed; however, it noted that the owner of the vehicle had a shotgun and shotgun shells in his vehicle. This authority did not request any additional investigative step or ask for testimony from the three individuals who were in the vehicle when the facts took place. The State recognized that, under the law in force at the time, Mr. Aguirre was not recognized as a witness. 44. Second, the IACHR highlights that according to the procedural documents submitted, there were at least four witnesses to the facts. However, none of these individuals were called to testify. 45. Third, the IACHR notes that between 1993 and 2001, the process was transferred to at least five different judicial authorities as a result of multiple requests for recusal. These requests were because of a supposed connection between the judicial authorities and the defendant, who was a Justice of the Peace for Villa de Apaneca. The Commission observes that according to the documentation presented, there was no procedural activity during this period of time On the contrary, none of the authorities requested the performance of any investigative steps or the collection of testimony from the persons involved or from the witnesses. 46. Fourth, the IACHR takes note of the information provided by the petitioner and not challenged by the State on the filing of briefs with judicial authorities to accelerate the process and challenge omissions in the investigation. Those briefs, also submitted by Mr. Maguiña, a person with physical disabilites, met with no response. The IACHR also notes that there was a request from the Office of the Public Prosecutor to place the accused in pretrial detention, but it also met with no response. Inter-American Court. Case of Furlán and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 204. 41 UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 38/2016, September 20, 2018, para. 11.4. 42 UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Views adopted by the Committee under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 30/2015, August 18, 2017, para. 7.6. 40 8