who was murdered by military personnel; (iii) at the beginning of 1997, several different State authorities, including the Attorney General at the time, had criticized Mrs. Villaseñor's participation in the proceedings relating to non-enforcement of the death penalty; (iv) in May 1999, the Attorney for Special Cases at that time denounced Mrs. Villaseñor for acts of corruption in connection with the proceedings against former President Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of human rights violations; and (v) in October, 2001, various generals and colonels in the Armed Forces had questioned the book written by Mrs. Villaseñor about the murder of Myrna Mack. 128. In addition, the Commission points to the series of resolutions by the Human Rights Ombudsman (issued in 1994, 1999, and 2009) in which he stressed the importance of an exhaustive investigation of the facts. Moreover, the Ombudsman also identified the possible participation of State agents in the various threats and acts of intimidation denounced by Mrs. Villaseñor. In his resolution of March 1999, the Human Rights Ombudsman concluded that the judge was "being subjected to threats, acts of intimidation and coercion by (...)officials and staff of various public institutions." 129. The Commission stresses that, pursuant to above-mentioned international standards, State must be particularly diligent in their investigations when there are threats or acts of aggression against judges, an obligation that is even more imperative when those pressures are possibly being exerted by State agents. Along those same lines, the Court has established the importance of establishing logical threads to be pursued in investigations based on the proofs and evidence collected.158 130. In the instant case, the IACHR considers that the State did not conduct diligent investigations within a reasonable period of time designed to throw light on what happened, identify those responsible -including their possible membership of or ties to State agents -- and punish them. The Commission stresses that, given the content and context of the complaints about threats and acts of aggression described, the State authorities were required to draw up and exhaustively pursue a serious investigative hypothesis linking Mrs. Villaseñor's activities as a judge to the various military and police personnel, as well as other actors, involved in the proceedings in which she participated as a judge. Consequently, there is in the instant case a situation of complete impunity with respect to the multiple forms of pressure, threats and harassment described by the judge, despite the long time that has elapsed since the first complaints. 131. Furthermore, the IACHR reiterates that guaranteeing judges protection against outside pressure entails -- in addition to conducting the investigations needed to detect the source of risk, shed light on what happened, and identify and punish those responsible -- crafting and implementing protective measures to safeguard the life and integrity of whoever denounces threats and harassment. 132. In the instant case, the Commission decided to grant precautionary measures on Mrs. Villaseñor's behalf "following complaints of stalking, threats, and harassment (...), threats apparently related to the judicial proceedings which [...] she is hearing." From that date on until precautionary measures were lifted in July 2013, the Commission monitored via that mechanism the protective measures adopted by the State on behalf of Mrs. Villaseñor. Likewise, as specified in the section on proven facts, the IACHR has received information and documentation from both parties as it processed the instant case with regard to the protective measures adopted. 133. On this, the Commission takes note of the fact that once those measures were adopted, the State initially designated two police officers to protect Mrs. Villaseñor's home, one of whom lacked the appropriate equipment. Subsequently, and at the request of the President of the Judiciary, two security guards, with their replacements, were assigned: a situation that continued until 1997, when two of them were withdrawn. The Commission notes that while at some point Mrs. Villaseñor apparently indicated that the threats had stopped, prior to and after that point in time she consistently complained of the risk to which she was exposed. 158 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, par. 115. 23