then-president of the Republic say. “Something has to be done about that guy.” The petitioner maintained that “with that, [the president] gave his consent for the worst.” 12. The petitioner indicated that the journalist had been receiving threats. It stated that Leguizamón had “told [his team] to be careful,” and that they should “be in a constant state of alert”; and in view of the threats, he had said that he “preferred physical death to ethical death.” The petitioner stated that the journalist’s wife and 4 children were living in the capital city because the border town of Pedro Juan Caballero was not safe. 13. The petitioner alleged that Santiago Leguizamón’s murder has gone unpunished. It stated that although the judicial investigation was opened on the day of his murder, it was carried out “superficially, in an obsolete manner, and with striking instances of negligence.” It maintained that the Paraguayan police acted negligently and failed to assist in the investigation in order to establish the facts of the case and detain the perpetrators. It asserted that a review of the court file by attorneys and journalists at the request of the Journalists Union of Paraguay revealed the basic and inexplicable clumsiness of the investigation from the very beginning and the multiple and suspicious loose ends that were never tied up; it was as if the authorities deliberately intended to allow the crime against Santiago Leguizamón to remain in absolute impunity, while his murderers roamed the streets in broad daylight. 14. According to the initial petition, more than 15 years after Santiago Leguizamón’s murder, the masterminds had been neither identified nor prosecuted. The petitioner also stated that, as of the filing date of the initial petition, the Paraguayan State had not made a formal request to Brazil for the prosecution of the alleged direct perpetrators, who were Brazilian nationals residing in Brazil. The petitioner stated that the victim’s relatives found out through the news media that the case had been shelved in 2002, but had never been given notice of that decision. 15. Later, and in response to the information provided by the State, the petitioner indicated that after making numerous inquiries to courts, prosecutors, and police authorities in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, it determined that there had been no judicial action taken in that country with regard to the 4 Brazilians alleged to be the direct perpetrators of Santiago Leguizamón’s murder. 16. The petitioner maintained that the Paraguayan State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4, 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of journalist Santiago Leguizamón and his relatives. B. Position of the State 17. The State argued that the petition should be declared inadmissible due to the failure to exhaust domestic judicial remedies in keeping with Article 46 of the American Convention and the absence of a colorable claim alleging violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. 18. The State indicated that “according to the court file, on April 26, 1991, journalist SANTIAGO LEGUIZAMON was the victim of the crime of murder on a public street in the city of Pedro Juan Caballero, having been shot 22 times. Immediately after the events, the judge and prosecutor on duty reported to the scene, and by means of Interlocutory Order No. 169 of April 26, 1991, the Court opened the investigation into the act and the identification of its perpetrator or perpetrators, accomplices, and accessories.” It added that the court case was assigned to the Criminal Trial Court No. 3 [Juzgado en lo Penal de Liquidación y Sentencia] of the Judicial District of Amambay. The State explained that this case was processed under the inquisitorial system in accordance with the 1890 Code of Criminal Procedure, in force when the murder was committed. 19. The State asserted that the judge amended the criminal investigation through a February 18, 1992 order to include fourteen suspects, all Brazilian nationals. It reported that the Court issued a pretrial detention order on April 29, 1992 to extradite the suspects from Brazil, if they were there. It indicated that on September 21, 1992, the Court found all of the defendants to be in contempt of court. It stated that on 3