141. From the investigation conducted later on, the Commission does not have information that would enable it to conclude that the State duly corrected these initial failings. Moreover, there is evidence indicating that they might not have exhausted lines of investigation. For instance, there is no record that the officials in charge of the investigation thoroughly investigated the different indications of pressure and threats by the police officers referred to throughout this report on the merits. Nor is there a record that they exhausted a line of investigation into the presumed unusual activities of some of the police officers involved on the day of the disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar. By the same token, there was never an in-depth investigation into the evidence of abuse suffered by the victim at the Lircay police station. 142. In summary, the Commission finds that in the judgment of February 15, 2001, the Huancavelica Joint Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, two police officers were convicted as responsible for the crime against humanity in the form of forced disappearance, to the detriment of Walter Munárriz Escobar. Moreover, the Commission notes that on December 13, 2001, the Supreme Criminal Chamber vacated the judgment, and ordered a new oral proceeding. On May 25, 2004, the Joint Chamber of the Huancavelica Superior Court of Justice acquitted all of the defendants, on the grounds of “having proven the disappearance of the injured party, Walter Munárriz Escobar, but not the responsibility of the defendants […].” The same Chamber decided to provisionally close the case and continue with the investigations “into the whereabouts of the injured party, and into the persons responsible for the forced disappearance.” 143. From the foregoing, the Commission considers that the conclusions reached by the domestic authorities were not the result of a serious, diligent, and thorough investigation, in accordance with the State’s obligation under the American Convention, the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In this regard, the acquittal of the responsible parties does not prevent the State from initiating an investigation in accordance with its obligations to clarify events and establish the responsible parties, an act that would not contravene the principle of ne bis in idem. This is consistent with the recommendations made in the final part of this report. 144. The Commission further notes that, since October 20, 2004, the date on which other legal remedies were resolved and the judgment of May 25, of that year was upheld, the State has neither moved forward with investigations nor made headway in clarifying the facts. Neither has the State submitted information that would show that it was following other lines of investigation or that there was a plan for discovering the fate or whereabouts of the victim. 145. On the date of the approval of this report, over 17 years have lapsed since the beginning of execution of the forced disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar, and said disappearance has yet to be clarified, while the State has not presented any explanation to justify the absence of new proceedings. Here, the Commission considers that the State has incurred an excessive delay in the investigations that is not justified by the complexity of the matter, but rather is due to the lack of incentive and diligence on the part of the State. 146. By virtue of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru has not implemented the necessary measures to fulfill its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish, within a reasonable period of time, and with due diligence, the persons responsible for the human rights violations analyzed in this report. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, considered in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of Walter Munárriz Escobar and his family members. The State of Peru is also held responsible for violation of Article 1.b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. C. Obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law related to the classification of the crime of forced disappearance of persons (Article 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons) 29