contended that the proceedings are still in the pre-trial investigative stage although this stage should extend for 30 days at the most. 15. As for international responsibility for violation to the right to life, the petitioners informed that, before he was killed, Mr. Pacheco won the primaries for the National Party in the Department of Valle, as a result of which he was a candidate for a seat in the National Congress in the elections that were to be held on November 25, 2001. They pointed out that, after winning the primaries, he received death threats demanding that he withdraw from the electoral race from various persons whose interests were going to be undermined if he won the election, including one mayor, congresspersons, and a police officer. They added that these persons demanded that he withdraw his candidacy to the seat of congressperson. 16. Regarding political rights, they contended that the State had the obligation of creating the conditions needed for Ángel Pacheco to freely exercise his political activities, without any harassment or danger, which did not happen. They added that Mr. Pacheco was at the top of the polls to win the election as congressperson in the National Congress of Honduras, which was confirmed when his brother José Pacheco took his place and was elected as congressperson. In that respect, the petitioners alleged that the killing of Ángel Pacheco breached his right to be elected to political office. 17. Finally, the petitioners alleged violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Pacheco León. They indicated that the way in which Ángel Pacheco was killed, as well as the constant denial of justice and the situation of impunity that they have experienced, has led to suffering and distress. They also reported various threats that several family members of Mr. Pacheco had received, the State’s failure to adopt security measures, and its failure to investigate these incidents. B. Position of the State 18. The State contended that, since November 23, 2001, date on which Mr. Pacheco was killed, on the basis of its various administrators of justice, it has guaranteed the right to due process of law and has made efforts to identify the instigators and perpetrators of this crime. 19. It pointed out that initially three persons were charged for the crime and that a warrant was issued for their arrest and imprisonment. It contended that, afterwards, because of steps taken and the absence of evidence against them, these persons were released. 20. The State indicated that the criminal proceedings for the death of Mr. Pacheco León continue to be in the investigative stage and that, to date, the instigators and perpetrators of the crime have not been identified. It pointed out that, nevertheless, many steps have been taken to find out the facts and punish those responsible, but they have turned out to be unfruitful. Among them, the State stresses the depositions by suspects and witnesses, the onsite visual inspections, as well as the disinterment of the body of Mr. Pacheco León to draw a DNA sample and its analysis with the evidence obtained. He also contended that the petitioners have had physical access to the interventions in the proceedings. 21. Regarding some of the flaws in the investigation, the State pointed out that certain key witnesses in the case have refused to be questioned “because they fear for their life.” It contended that it proceeded to set in motion a witness protection system for some persons. It also recognized that Mr. Pacheco's blood sample drawn during his autopsy was destroyed because “the engine of the cold storage room where the sample was located broke down because of the blowout of an electric power transformer in the building.” 22. As for the extensive time-period of the proceedings, it indicated that it was reasonable because the case was complex. The State explained that the case was deemed to be complex because there was more than one suspect as the instigator and perpetrator of the crime. 23. As for the alleged violation of the right to life, the State indicated that it would not issue any viewpoint about this because said right was not examined in the admissibility report on the present case. It