agent assigned to the investigation explained that the decision not to interview these individuals until there was strong evidence against them, was taken “first, because it was inappropriate, second, because it could be premature and, third, it was potentially imprudent.” He explained that it was “inappropriate, because if they have already been referred to me as possible suspects, upon interviewing them it is my constitutional obligation, and it is the right of these individuals, to be informed of the reason for the interview; consequently, they could have access to the same file and so it would be premature, because they could find out about the status of the investigation and in time influence potential witnesses, or intimidate them. And, theoretically, if they were responsible, it could be imprudent because they could attack potential witnesses.” 338 The Court considers that the gravity of this last omission is irremediable, given that the suspects died in 2010 and 2012 (supra para. 120). 221. In addition, the investigation was not linked to the criminal complaint filed on November 26, 2003, by Mrs. B.A. against L.L., despite the fact that the DICRI investigator notified the Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa and sent a report on April 5, 2005, which forms part of the criminal investigation file (supra para. 105). Moreover, in the context of the investigation and on repeated occasions, B.A. reported that she had filed said complaint and associated it with Mr. A.A.’s death (supra paras. 146 and 154). There is no record that the investigating body tried to obtain confirmation thereof. 222. Fifth, with respect to the theory that Mr. A.A.’s death was motivated by the fact that he had witnessed the death of a young man in the area, there were also delays and certain omissions in gathering evidence. In this regard, by May 17, 2005, at least, investigators suspected the involvement of two young “gang members”, nicknamed “Queso” and “El Gato” in the homicide (supra para. 113), and on November 21, 2006, several lines of investigation were opened with the aim of identifying them and three other individuals nicknamed “Chelelo”, “Salomón” and “Susy.” Furthermore, on March 26, 2008, “El Gato”, “Chelelo” and “Salomón” were positively identified and, because they were “presumed” to have participated in the crime, raid, inspection and search procedures were carried out on June 17, 2008, but “with negative results.” 339 223. In this regard, the Court notes the delay in conducting the raid, inspection and search procedures, which took place nearly eighteen months after investigators were ordered to identify the individuals, considered as suspects. This could render the procedure ineffective, given its untimeliness in the sphere or context of the action. Similarly, the Court notes that there is no record that investigators followed, or completed, the two lines of inquiry opened to identify the two remaining suspects, “Queso” and “Susy”, or that they linked together the results obtained until that moment. Nor is there any record that the three individuals who were identified, namely, “Gato”, “Chelelo” and “Salomón”, were summoned to testify before the Public Prosecution Service to obtain further information on the charges against them, or on details of the existence and identity of “Queso” and “Susy” and the possible relationship between them. 340 Similarly, they did not explore whether they had links with the material or intellectual authors of the crime. Indeed, there is no record that efforts were made to establish, at least, whether Mr. A.A. submission brief, pages 931 to 934), and Report of March 1, 2006, of the Assistant Human Rights Prosecutor to the Criminal Investigations Specialists of the DICRI (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 948 to 949). 338 Cf. Statement rendered by E.M., to the Prosecutor assigned to the case, before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. 339 Cf. Request from the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor to the Criminal Investigations Specialists of March 1, 2006 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 948); Request from the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor to the Criminal Investigations Specialists of November 21, 2006 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1122); Request of the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor to the Criminal Investigations Specialists of April 8, 2008 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1135); Report of the Criminal Investigations Specialists to the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor of April 10, 2008 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1177 to 1178); Resolution of June 16, 2008, issued by the Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of the Municipality of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1273 to 1276), and Procedures of inspection, raid and search of June 17, 2008 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1291 to 1306). 340 According to the evidence, on February 3, 2009, at the request of the Assistant Prosecutor, the investigator of the DICRI interviewed “Chelelo”, who only provided information on Mr. A.A., and on February 24, 2009, the DICRI investigators reported on his work, life style and working relations. Cf. Request of the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor to the Criminal Investigations Specialists of November 24, 2008 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1307), and Report of the Criminal Investigations Specialists to the Human Rights Prosecutor of February 24, 2009 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1308 to 1309). 67