30 97. Considering that, more than 14 years after the murder of Blanca Jeannette KawasFernández, the State has allowed for it to be impossible so far to establish individual responsibility, the Court finds it reasonable to assess as evidence the indications contained in the case file (supra paras. 84 to 94) that point to the involvement of state agents in these events, particularly those handled by the very state agencies that were in charge of the investigation which have not been disproven by the State. Reaching any other conclusion would entail allowing the State to resort to its own negligence or inefficacy for the criminal investigation to release itself from responsibility for the violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention. 98. Moreover, the Court notes that, as per the statement rendered before the Juzgado Primero de Letras Seccional (First Divisional Trial Court) in and for Comayagua by the prosecutor formerly in charge of the investigation, Saúl Benjamín Zapata (supra para. 62), “the apparent main reason or motive [for her murder] was that Kawas was a tireless environmental advocate and was opposed to a tourist development to be built in Tela Bay […] in an area protected under a National Park designation.”119 In this regard, the reports issued by the authorities in charge of the investigation find that Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was at odds with some people “owing to her work in defense of the environment, conducted through the PROLANSATE environmental foundation.”120 In this connection, Mr. Rafael Sambulá stated before this Court that “the reports [filed by] those who wor[k] in the environmental area or […] in protected areas […] are extremely related to economic interests, very powerful economic interests.”121 Similarly, the State has acknowledged “the difficult situation facing those citizens engaged in the defense of the environment,” among whom the State included Ms. Kawas-Fernández,122 economic groups that may not share their vision regarding environmental protection.” 99. Considering the above, which the State itself has asserted, the Court notes that even though the murder of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was caused by certain private interests, the specific circumstances surrounding it show that the murder was enabled by the involvement of people who acted under the protection of their authority as state agents, as established supra. * * * 100. Based on all of the above, it is clear that the State did not perform a serious, complete and effective investigation of the events, in compliance with its duty to “guarantee” rights (Article 1(1) of the Convention). Basically, the State has recognized that it has breached its duty upon accepting its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention (supra para. 7). 119 Cfr. Witness statement rendered by Saúl Benjamín Zapata Mejía on January 20, 2004, supra note 31. 120 Cf. Technical Legal Report No. DCAT-SATJ- AFS 022/2003, supra note 31. 121 Cf. Statement rendered by Rafael Sambulá before the Inter-American Court, supra note 25. 122 Cf. UN, Human Rights Commission, Consideration of the reports submitted by states parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Initial Report, HONDURAS, CCPR/C/HND/2005/1, April 26, 2005 (record of appendixes to the application, appendix 2, folio 56).