processing the evidence, and a lack of diligence and thoroughness in following the logical lines of investigation. Moreover, the Public Prosecution Service did not summon any of the six individuals identified as suspects to testify in the context of the investigation. For their part, the witnesses and deponents in this case feared suffering the consequences of any information they might give, since the State did not provide the necessary measures of protection once it became aware of the facts. Therefore, nearly 10 years after the events of this case occurred, and since the investigation began, the violent death of Mr. A.A. remains in the most absolute impunity, beyond any reasonable time. 237. Consequently, the Court finds that the investigation conducted in the domestic jurisdiction has not been diligent, serious and effective and considers it proven that the State failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the relatives of A.A. 238. Finally, the Court considers that in this case it is not necessary to examine the arguments of the Commission and the representatives regarding the possible impact of the impunity surrounding Mr. A.A.’s murder on the personal integrity his relatives. The effects that this impunity may have produced will be taken into account when establishing the corresponding reparations for the violations declared. B.2. Regarding the alleged threats to family A 239. With respect to the complaint filed by Mrs. B.A. on November 26, 2003, at the Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, in which she reported that she and her son had been threatened by Mr. L.L., from the record it is clear that the only investigative action was carried out in the context of the criminal investigation connected with Mr. A. A.’s death, on April 5, 2005, when the DICRI investigator sent a copy of the investigation file and suggested to the Assistant Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, that L.L. be summoned to testify (supra para. 105). There is no record that the criminal investigation into this complaint continued. 240. As to the complaint filed before the Public Prosecution Service on January 21, 2005, concerning a supposed attack on January 14, 2005, there is merely a record of its existence. Given that it was not possible identify any witness, the case was dismissed on February 28, 2008, by the Court of First Instance of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (supra para. 123). 241. In this regard, the Court notes that even though the Ombudsman’s Office reached the conclusion that there was evidence of intimidation and surveillance against family A (supra para. 151), there is no record that this information was linked to the investigations undertaken in this case. To summarize, none of the investigations carried out attempted to obtain further evidence aimed at clarifying the facts and identifying those responsible. 242. The Court considers that the investigation into the presumed threats made against family A was characterized by a lack of due diligence. Furthermore, in this case, the time that has elapsed greatly exceeds what could be considered a reasonable period for the State to begin the appropriate investigative actions. This failure to investigate during such a long period amounts to a flagrant denial of justice and a violation of the right to judicial protection of the presumed victims. Consequently, the Court finds that the State failed to discharge its obligation to investigate the alleged threats with the required diligence, thoroughness and effectiveness, in violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of the relatives of A.A. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 243. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 358 the Court has established that any violation of an international obligation which has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation, and that this provision “reflects a 358 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 71