to dismiss the case against these persons, it was indicated that "there are no reasonable clues about who might be the perpetrators of the crime.” In that respect, follow-up on this hypothesis, for which there are no clues that would substantiate it in the court case file, diverted attention from all the consistent clues about the killing of Mr. Pacheco León for reasons involving his candidacy to the National Congress and respective alleged instigators and perpetrators of the crime. 105. Furthermore, the Court has pointed out that "the judges, based on the principle of effective judicial protection, should have acted with due diligence, ensuring prompt trial proceedings.”147 Regarding this, as detailed afterwards, the IACHR observes that there was unjustified delay by the judicial authorities in carrying out diverse actions, as well as periods of time without any follow-up or the ordering of other steps. 106. Likewise, in the cases Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras and López-Luna v. Honduras, the Court established that threats to witnesses who are part of court proceedings may have an intimidating and discouraging effect on those in charge of the investigation and on those who might be witnesses, seriously undermining the effectiveness of the investigation. 148 That is why States have the obligation to "provide all necessary measures to protect the (…) investigators, witnesses and families of the victims from harassment and threats aimed at obstructing the proceeding and preventing elucidation of the facts, as well as covering up those responsible.” 149 107. Regarding this, the Commission observes that the security of certain persons who have participated in the proceedings has been affected. According to proven facts, according to a 2001 DGIC report, there were witnesses "that feared having their statements taken in writing for fear of losing their life." In addition, as indicated above, the next of kin also indicated that they reported having received threats. Nevertheless, as indicated earlier, in the case file there is no information that would indicate that the State had implemented any protection measures for their benefit or that they had investigated the origin of the threats and harassment. 108. The Commission therefore observes that, during the investigation, information emerged about possible incidents of retaliation and pressure on persons who participated in the investigations, although there is no information about any investigation of these incidents. 109. In short, the Commission considers that the State failed to fulfill its duty to clarify what happened to Mr. Ángel Pacheco by looking for the truth and identifying and eventually punishing all those persons responsible, including the instigators and perpetrators of the crime. 1.2. Reasonable time 110. As one of the elements of due process of law, Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes that courts must rule on the cases submitted to them for hearing within a reasonable time. In that respect, a prolonged delay may, in itself, eventually constitute a violation of the right to fair trial,150 and therefore the State must indicate and prove why more than a reasonable amount of time has been required to issue a final judgment in a particular case.151 147 I/A Court H.R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 170; and Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 210. 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para.106; Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 173. 149 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 107; Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 173. 150 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Case of Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 151 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142.