2. Analysis of whether the State complied with its obligation to investigate with due diligence and in a reasonable period of time. 134. The Commission considers that, in cases such as this one, it is the duty of the State to demonstrate that its authorities complied with their obligations under the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons from the time they were in force in the State in question. Specifically it is the duty of States to demonstrate that its authorities proceeded diligently with investigations, once they were informed of a disappearance. Moreover, in view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence to activate the duty to investigate possible acts of torture in the context of the disappearance of a victim, the Commission also deems it relevant to invoke the obligations to investigate under the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 135. The Commission notes that, upon learning of the disappearance reported, the authorities did not take specific and immediate action to learn of the whereabouts of Walter Munárriz Escobar and to protect his life and integrity, especially when he disappeared after having been detained by State agents. The very day of the events, Mrs. Gladys Escobar Candiotti appeared in person at the Lircay police station where she inquired about her son and reported his disappearance.108 The following day, she attempted to file a complaint regarding the disappearance of her son with the Lircay Provincial Prosecutor’s Office; there is sufficient evidence that the Prosecutor there refused to accept her complaint and asked her to return two months later. 136. From available information, it is clear that said Prosecutor, who should have expedited the initial investigations, was clearly biased in favor of the police officers involved. Thus not only did she refuse to accept the complaint, while indicating her incredulity to the mother of the victim, and telling her that they were not living in a time of terrorism, but also, in official documents related to the investigation, she specifically stated that the purpose of the investigation was to demonstrate the lack of responsibility of the police officers, to protect the “good reputation” of the institution. 137. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that the initial investigations were carried out by an authority without even minimal guarantees of impartiality. 138. Moreover, this lack of impartiality was clearly reflected in the superficial way in which the investigations were conducted, with regard to both the search for Walter Munárriz Escobar and clarification of the responsibilities. 139. The initial lack of due diligence was pointed out in the undated preliminary report of the Office of the People’s Defender, in which specific reference was made to the failure to take critical evidence. On this point, it concluded: “The investigation conducted by the representative from the Office of the Prosecutor moved slowly, and was confined to taking statements, without any other steps being undertaken so as to fully clarify the events under investigation; neither did it coordinate with other entities in a search for the disappeared person. The magistrate (sic) in question found the statements made by the implicated police officers as absolutely credible...109 140. The Commission points out that in cases of forced disappearance of persons, the initial investigative proceedings are crucial and can be a determining factor in the actual prospect of clarifying the whereabouts of the disappeared person, and in determining the possible responsible parties. Thus the failure of due diligence in the initial stages of the investigation into the forced disappearance of a person has a particularly negative impact on the entire investigation. 108 Annex 40. In the statement given at the pretrial hearing by, Adolfo Edgar Ángeles Ramos, it states that: “he learned of the disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar on the same day, in the morning when he approached the victim’s mother and sisters, who told him that he had been detained.” Annex to the State’s Memorandum N° 7-5-M/066 of 9 February 2006. 109 Annex 5. Preliminary report of the People’s Defender. Annex to the initial petition. 28