36 Fernández,149 sister; Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández,150 brother, and Jorge Jesús KawasFernández,151 brother. The Commission included Mr. James Gordon Watt as husband of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández; that notwithstanding, he submitted no evidence to prove that such relationship existed; hence he will not be considered a victim for the purposes of the instant case. 120. The Court notes that in the instant case, Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas should not be recognized as victim of the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, as requested by the representatives (supra para. 6), since in cases of violent deaths, the power to claim for these rights “corresponds to the relatives of the deceased victim, who are interested parties to the search for justice and to whom the State must provide effective resources to guarantee such right to justice, investigations and potential punishment, as applicable, of those responsible and the overall reparation of the consequences of violations”.152 * ** 121. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for non-fulfillment of the duty to adopt domestic law measures, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention, in order to give efficacy to the State obligations resulting from Articles 8(1) and 25 of such treaty. The Commission supported such arguments in the statements made by the State during the processing of the case at such instance, pursuant to which “every deficiency in the furthering of proceedings resulted from the fact that the procedural framework in force at the time of the events has given rise to limitations in their investigation”.153 The Court finds that the Commission has not elaborated on this argument. 122. Accordingly, in the exercise of the rights contained in Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds that there are no elements in the instant case to conclude that the State has failed to fulfill its duties in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention. * ** 149 Cf. birth certificate of Mrs. Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández (record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, folio 1799). 150 Cf. birth certificate of Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández (record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, folio 1800). 151 Cf. Birth certificate of Mr. Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández (record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, folio 1801). 152 Cf. Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 170. 153 Cf. Brief of the State submitted to the Commission on June 2, 2004 (record of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, folios 831 to 832). In said brief, the State alleged that “the case discussed herein is being studied in accordance with the Inquisitive Criminal Justice System, regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1984, which in principle establishes the concept of the “Investigating Judge”, absolute director of the investigation stage of proceedings, assigning a merely formal role to the agents of the Attorney General’s Office. In accordance with such regulations, they only participate in the trial stage of proceedings; hence the “Investigating Judge” does not have the elements and logistics (sic) necessary to promptly perform any enquiring procedures entrusted thereto; as opposed to the Attorney General’s Office which does have the necessary elements. However, as mentioned before, the procedural participation of the Prosecutor’s Office is merely formal and thus delays the regular progress of the criminal proceeding as described above”.