69 Pleadings of the Commission 115. The Inter-American Commission alleged that the State violated Articles 8(1), 25 and Article 1(1) of the American Convention, based on the following arguments: a) the State denied the right to justice to the next of kin of the alleged victim, because it did not provide them with an effective judicial remedy or adequate due process, as set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The investigation conducted regarding the facts was insufficient and ineffective, and furthermore it remained incomplete, for which reason the State did not fulfill its international obligation to investigate, try and punish, stemming from Article 1(1) of the American Convention, despite the fact that it was a public action crime; b) the judicial authorities focused the investigation on a single person, Ángel Belisario Hernández González, whose absence was the basis for shelving the proceeding. Even though the authorities issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Hernández González, in the understanding that he was the “military officer in charge of the subdelegation in said municipality,” they refrained from ordering an investigation of the other military personnel posted in that military jurisdiction, and not even the identity of the latter was established; c) not all the crimes committed were investigated. The only crime investigated by the judicial authorities was the murder, setting aside arbitrary detention and alleged tortures suffered by the alleged victim; and d) the State did not comply with the principle of promptness of the habeas corpus remedy. Said remedy was rejected almost one month after the body of the victim was found. Pleadings of the State 116. The State argued that it “did not violate international obligations or [...] right[s] or guarantees protected by the American Convention [on] Human Rights” and, therefore, it rejected any claim that it be found responsible in this case. Specifically, regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8, 25 and Article 1(1) of the American Convention, it stated that: a) one of the purposes of the State is to safeguard the security of its population and, therefore, in face of complaints submitted against Juan Humberto Sánchez, “it took investigative steps [...] and [...] on July 10, 1992 the respective authorities deemed that as part of said investigative activities it was important to receive the statement of JUAN HUMBERTO SÁNCHEZ,” against whom the complaints had been made. Once Mr. Sánchez made his statement, he “left with his stepfather” the respective offices of the agents of the authorities; b) in certain cases the “agents of the authorities” can detain a person for investigative purposes, a detention that must not surpass 24 hours, due to constitutional provisions;