6. On November 1, 2006, the Commission forwarded the admissibility report to the parties. It also informed the parties that, in line with Article 38.2 of its Rules of Procedure, it was at the disposal of the parties to reach a friendly settlement. On December 31, 2006, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits. As for the State, it submitted its observations on the merits on May 18, 2007. 7. Afterwards, the petitioners submitted communications on July 24, 2007, January 30, 2008, January 28, 2009, June 24, 2012, and March 13, 2013. Furthermore, the State filed communications on November 29, 2007, December 5, 2008, and May 25 and October 25, 2012. All communications were duly forwarded to the parties. Likewise, on October 14, 2014, IACHR held a public hearing on the case at the 153 rd period of sessions. III. A. POSITION OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioners 8. The petitioners indicated that the State is responsible for the killing of Ángel Pacheco León, which took place on November 23, 2001, as well as for the absence of an investigation clarifying what happened and punishment of those responsible for said crime. They pointed out that the homicide of Mr. Pacheco took place in a context of impunity in Honduras, in particular when killings were linked to politics. 9. As for the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, the petitioners indicated that, although they had started an investigation of the events, to date, almost 14 years after Mr. Pacheco was killed, the proceedings continue to be at a preliminary stage and not one single person has been punished. 10. They indicated that, on the same day as the killing of Mr. Pacheco, three persons were arrested without any evidence against them. They contended that, only two years later, the prosecutor in charge recognized that these persons were in no way responsible for the crime. The petitioners indicated that this led to unnecessary and excessive delays as a result of which the investigation of the true perpetrators of the crime came to a standstill. 11. The petitioners pointed out that the State did not adopt the minimum requirements established in the Model Protocol for a Legal Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol). They indicated that the crime scene was not isolated by a police cordon and that the authorities did not take note of the presence of motor vehicles in the immediate surroundings of the crime scene that could be compared with the descriptions provided subsequently by Mr. Pacheco's next of kin . 12. They also alleged that the initial investigation was marked by long periods of paralysis in its proceedings, including the destruction of Mr. Pacheco’s blood samples taken during his autopsy. They indicated that the proceedings were set in motion again only after Mr. Pacheco’s next of kin filed a complaint with the Special Prosecution Office for Human Rights of the Attorney General's Office for a denial of justice in July 2004. They added that, in September 2005, Mr. Pacheco’s body was disinterred in order to take DNA samples, which were also destroyed. 13. The petitioners contended that both the prosecution and court authorities were negligent in gathering evidence that could have reasonably involved the responsibility of various persons, including public officials accused of having sent death threats to Ángel Pacheco León since he had won the primaries to represent the National Party as a candidate to be a congressperson in the National Congress. They identified the following persons: Rafael Callejas, Benjamín and Salvador Cárdenas, Raúl Pino, Jorge Berrios, Juan Che, and Manuel Vides. The petitioners pointed out that not all the persons mentioned or all the witnesses who held information about the threats made before Mr. Pacheco’s death were subpoenaed. They added there was no evidence that these suspects were searched for firearms or motor vehicles. 14. They alleged that access to court proceedings had been restricted. They indicated that, on various occasions, they were not able to have access to the proceedings of the Attorney General's Office. They