249. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to: a)“[u]ndertake an impartial, complete and effective investigation to identify the material and intellectual perpetrators of [A.A.´s] murder, and of the threats and acts of intimidation suffered by his family”; b) “[a]scertain whether the violent events that took place subsequently (murders of other community leaders or of individuals supposedly involved in the killing of [A.A.]) are related to that event, in order to determine whether criminal organizations are behind these acts”; c) “[s]trengthen the mechanisms for the protection of individuals whose statements have a significant impact on the investigations and who are therefore at risk”, and d) “[o]rder administrative, disciplinary or punitive measures corresponding to the denial of justice, and the consequent impunity.” 250. The State argued that “a full investigation has been carried out” and “therefore it should not be required […] to implement actions it has already carried out […] as a measure of compensation.” In this regard, it held that its officials had acted within the framework of the law at all times; otherwise, it was up to the interested parties to file the corresponding complaint, in accordance with Guatemalan law. The State also indicated that “the investigation will remain open insofar as it is legally possible to obtain a positive result, and if so, those responsible will be prosecuted and punished […].” 251. This Court has already established that, in this case, the State did not fully discharge its obligation to investigate the death of Mr. A.A., given the lack of due diligence evidenced during the initial procedures of the investigation, with respect to the logical lines of inquiry and the gathering of evidence (supra para. 236). Furthermore, it found that the witnesses and deponents in this case feared the consequences of providing information to the investigation, and that the latter was not conducted within a reasonable time (supra paras. 235 and 236). The Court has also established that the threats against family A were not investigated with the required diligence, thoroughness and effectiveness (supra para. 242). On other hand, the Court notes that the State said that it would keep open the investigation into Mr. A.A.’s death, in order to prosecute and punish those responsible (supra para. 250). 252. Accordingly, the Court orders the State to conduct, with due diligence and within a reasonable time, the necessary investigations and criminal proceedings in accordance with domestic legislation, in order to individualize, identify and, if applicable, punish those materially and intellectually responsible for Mr. A.A.’s death and for the threats suffered by his relatives, and to establish the truth of what happened, based on the criteria indicated for the investigation in such cases (supra paras. 199 to 242). Therefore, the State must: a) ensure that the different judicial organs involved in the case are provided with the necessary human and material resources to perform their tasks adequately, independently and impartially and that the individuals involved in the investigation, including victims, witnesses and justice operators, have full security guarantees; 363 b) ensure that the relatives of Mr. A.A. are granted full access and capacity to act in all stages of these investigations, in accordance with domestic law and with the provisions of the American Convention, 364 and c) publicize the results of these processes so that society is made aware of the facts of this case and those responsible. 365 253. Furthermore, as on previous occasions, 366 the Court orders the State to examine possible procedural and investigative irregularities related to this case, in line with the pertinent disciplinary standards and, if applicable, sanction the conduct of the relevant public officials, without requiring the victims to file complaints for those purposes. 363 Cf. Case of The Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 231, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 251. 364 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 139, and Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 233. 365 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 233, and Case of The Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 256. 366 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 215, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 392. 73