190. With respect to Mrs. B.A., the Court has already established that she faced a situation of real and imminent danger and that the State did not provide her with adequate and effective measures of protection, despite being aware of her situation. This, in turn, forced her to leave the village of Cruce de la Esperanza and the Municipality of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa and resulted in her displacement within Guatemala and to Mexico (supra para. 169). This Court has also determined that the State did not provide the necessary guarantees to facilitate Mrs. B.A.’s voluntary dignified and safe return to her usual place of residence, i.e. the village of Cruce de la Esperanza, where she held the positions of Secretary of COCODE and Social Organization Officer (supra para. 171). 191. In these circumstances, given the nature of Mrs. B.A.’s work as Social Organization Officer in the Municipality of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, her displacement necessarily implied an interruption in her political work from this position, which she was unable to resume until February 16, 2006 (supra para. 99). Furthermore, given that in order to serve as Secretary of the COCODE of Cruce de la Esperanza, Mrs. B.A. was required to live in that village - to which she still has not been able to return- the Court considers that she was unable to continue to exercise her political rights from this public position. 192. Therefore, the Court considers that the State did not guarantee the necessary conditions to enable Mrs. B.A. to continue to exercise her political rights from the political positions she held. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 23(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to her detriment. 193. As to the representatives’ argument that Mrs. B.A. was prevented from continuing to freely exercise her right to defend human rights as a consequence having to leave the positions in which she carried out those activities, the Court considers that the obligation to guarantee that right has been sufficiently addressed in the analysis of the obligation to protect the personal integrity of Mrs. B.A. (supra paras. 153 to 160). VIII-4. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 194. In this Chapter, the Court will examine the alleged violation of the right to judicial guarantees 297 and to judicial protection, 298 in relation to the investigation into the violent death of Mr. A.A. and the alleged threats made to family A. A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 195. The Commission argued that Guatemala violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the relatives of A.A., given that the domestic investigations and proceedings had failed to provide effective remedies to guarantee access to justice, establish the truth of the facts, investigate and punish all those responsible and provide reparation for the consequences of the violations. The Commission offered four sets of arguments, which were comprehensively developed during the proceedings before the Court, namely: i) the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the death of A.A.; ii) the lack of due diligence in following logical lines of investigation; iii) the lack of protection for the individuals who testified in the case, and iv) the failure to investigate within a reasonable period. It also pointed out that the absence of a full and effective investigation, which in turn produced suffering and anguish because of not knowing the truth, in itself affected the psychological and moral integrity of the relatives of A.A. 196. The representatives added that the investigation of Mr. A.A.’s death could not be described as thorough, given the constant failure to implement timely or appropriate 297 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him, or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature.” 298 Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution or laws of the State concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 58