and judicial rulings requiring the armed forces to declassify that material, those orders were disobeyed by the military authorities and no steps were taken to enforce them. B. The State 12. At the merits stage, the State referred mainly to internal proceedings undertaken because of events relating to the death of the alleged victim and acknowledged that Mr. Flores Bedregal has been "murdered" in the assault on the COB on July 17, 1980. The State asserted that it had met its obligations to see justice done and that the IACHR could not act as a fourth instance to review domestic decisions establishing liabilities of the perpetrators and instigators. It also pointed out, in connection with the reasonable length of time criterion, that account had to be taken of the complexity of the facts investigated. It particular, the State argued that consideration should also be given to the fact that the events surrounding the assault on the COB had occurred under a dictatorship and in connection with "complex conduct by an unconstitutional military organization trained to get rid of evidence and proofs." 13. First, the State referred to the judicial liabilities proceedings against former de facto President Luis García Meza and members of the ministerial cabinet, the Armed Forces, the National Police, as well as civilians. He said that at that trial the perpetrators and instigators of the events that occurred in the assault on the COB had been punished. The State pointed out that those proceedings had ended in a judgment of conviction handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice on April 15, 1993, in which the maximum penalties permitted under domestic law had been imposed, with no entitlement to a pardon. 14. Second, the State submitted information regarding the criminal proceedings brought under ordinary (i.e. non-military) jurisdiction in 1999 against Franz Pizarro Solano, a member of the military, and other persons for the same facts surrounding the assault on the COB. The State stressed that those proceedings had been initiated because of the need to investigate other possible responsibilities in addition to those established in the "judicial liabilities proceedings." It said that the aforementioned persons were tried for the offenses of "armed uprisings against the security and sovereignty of the State," terrorism, murder, obstruction of justice/cover-up (encubrimiento), false testimony, and murder. The State pointed out that several of the accused had been convicted in final judgments and sentenced to the maximum terms of imprisonment, by an Order handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice on October 25, 2010. The State stressed the complexity of these proceedings given a supposed "pact of silence among the defendants" and their "obstructionist attitude," as well as series of incidental pleas and objections raised by defense counsel, all of which had had to be addressed in order to guarantee due process. The State pointed out that the Supreme Court's ruling placed on record the fact that the proceedings had taken so long due to the behavior of the accused. It pointed out that the family members had acted as claimants of civil damaged and had filed a series of petition. The State mentioned a third criminal proceeding brought by the Public Prosecutor's Office in 2009 for the crime of forced disappearance to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal and other persons which in 2011 had been at the inquiries stage. 15. In subsequent communications, the State rejected characterization of the facts as a case of forced disappearance, stating that "the death of Mr. Flores Bedregal was a proven fact" according to domestic judicial findings. Accordingly, the State submitted that "lato sensu [broadly speaking] given the participation and/or acquiescence of State agents in the event that resulted in the death of Mr. Flores Bedregal, it could be considered that the State violated [...] the right to life [...]". However, it argued that when democracy returned, the State had met its obligations to see justice done. The State maintained that at the time of the facts and of the criminal proceedings, it had not been obliged to characterize the crime of forced disappearance. 16. The State also pointed to the efforts undertaken to "recover the remains of persons disappeared" during the military dictatorship, including those of the alleged victim. In particular, it stressed that via the Inter-Institutional Council to Shed Light on Forced Disappearances (hereinafter "the CIEDEF"), established in 2003, a number of actions had been undertaken, that priority had been given to the case of Mr. Flores Bedregal, and that the Council had worked with family members and civil society to recover victims' remains. With regard to characterization of the crime of forced disappearance, it pointed out that the offense was incorporated into the Bolivian Criminal Code in 2006. 3