investigation agents who were at the crime scene, and the lack of steps to investigate senior commanders said to have organized the Plan Gavilán operation. 35. The petitioners say that due to the lack of investigation it was necessary for the Institute for Comparative Studies in Penal Sciences of Guatemala to become a co-plaintiff. In this regard, and in response to the points raised by the State, the petitioners argue that “the State confuses the legality of one of the petitioners…joining the case as a co-plaintiff with the State’s obligation to demonstrate to the Commission the judicial actions that have been taken to ensure a diligent investigation ….”19 36. Based on the foregoing, they consider that the State has violated rights established by the Convention in Articles 2, 4, 5, 8.1, and 25, all in connection with Article 1.1 of that treaty, and by Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. Position of the State 37. The State made no comment on the petitioners’ allegation of torture. 38. Nor did it comment on its alleged responsibility for the death sentence imposed on Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. On this matter, it summarized the provisional measures that were granted on behalf of the alleged victim in an effort to prevent his execution, which the State had asked to be lifted after Mr. Ruiz Fuentes escaped from his place of detention. 39. Concerning allegations of summary execution of the alleged victim, the State argues that “the hypothesis developed, based on the interviews and investigations conducted by the investigator in charge, is that it was a personal vendetta, because some of the people who passed through the place said that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was walking to the street when several persons carrying firearms said nothing but fired several shots that caused his death, then fled. It is believed that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes tried to fend off the attack with a gun in his right hand.””20 40. The State says that because the investigation is confidential, it cannot give further details about this theory. 41. Concerning the witnesses interviewed, it says that seven people have made statements, the text of which is in the corresponding criminal case file, although for the reason noted above, it cannot reveal their identities. 42. The State maintains “the Public Prosecutor’s Office is conducting the investigation to determine the truth and to identify those responsible for the death of Mr. Hugo Ruiz Fuentes.” It says that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has reported that it is impossible to say who caused his death. 43. On the question of progress in the investigation, the State reports that several steps have been taken, such as collecting testimony and reports from the Crime Scene Experts Unit and the Ballistics Section of the Forensic Technical Department, inter alia. Regarding the petitioners’ comment that Commission was not 19 Observations of the petitioners received on August 30. 2007. 20 Observations of the petitioners received on January 23, 2007. 7