individuals linked to the State. It added that the circumstances surrounding his death in the medical center, several months after the attack, do not lend themselves to be described as an extrajudicial execution; furthermore it argued that it had not been proved that the death was a direct result of the attack. 19. With regard to what happened to Mr. Guillermo Omeara, the State also indicated that participation of State agents in the facts had not been proved. In this regard, it stressed that it is not responsible for his disappearance, death and alleged torture. Regarding the latter it indicated that in any case the autopsy showed no evidence of such findings. 20. As regards what happened to Mr. Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, the State indicated that participation of State agents in the facts had not been established, and pointed out that in any case there is no proof his death was a result of the attack perpetrated on October 21, 1994. 21. Regarding the alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the State set out the steps taken in each of the proceedings undertaken in connection with what happened to the alleged victims. In this regard, it indicated that i) regarding Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara, proceedings are ongoing under file number 8872 where the First Deputy Prosecutor before the High Court of Bucaramanga decided to consider the facts as a crime against humanity; ii) regarding Mr. Guillermo Omeara Miraval, a number of proceedings followed in the ordinary, disciplinary and military jurisdictions, none of which established the participation of State agents, and in the proceedings followed under number 5118, the disappearance and execution was attributed to members of an illegal armed group, some of whom have already died; and iii) regarding Mr. Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, although the Prosecutor’s Office identified a number of individuals allegedly involved in the incident, one of them was a well known hetman of Aguachica, who was assassinated on January 14, 1996. 22. The State argued that, to date, the investigations are still ongoing and that it has acted with due diligence, in view of the fact that the obligation to investigate is one of means and not of results. It added that even if State agents acted illegally, the alleged victims’ relatives waived their right to reparations at the domestic level by not filing their claim before the contentious administrative jurisdiction, as required by law. It argued that the mere passage of time without a final decision in the criminal jurisdiction couldn’t be considered a violation of the Convention. It also indicated that in the criminal proceedings relating to Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, even though his relatives could have become a partie civile in the trial, they have not done so. 23. The State argues that it has not violated the rights to judicial guarantees, freedom of expression, protection of the family, and the rights of the child set out in Articles 3, 13, 17 and 19 of the American Convention because such Articles do not form the basis of the "litigation" of the case defined by the facts and alleged violations determined by the Commission in its Admissibility Report. In its view, by not considering such alleged violations in its Report, the Commission had made "their inadmissibility implicit" and therefore if such allegations were taken into consideration in the merits phase, the State’s right to a defense would be violated. 24. Finally, the State indicated that the next-of-kin of Messrs. Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez were not identified in the admissibility stage and thus the Commission cannot rule on the facts relating to these individuals for which it is considered that the State is responsible, since they cannot be considered to be new alleged victims at the merits stage. It also argued that the family members had not filed a timely suit for direct compensation domestically to obtain reparations and therefore the State considers that it is not possible for them to be acknowledged as victims before the Commission. IV. A. ANALYSIS ON THE MERITS Findings of Fact 4