6. The State indicated its firm interest in the criminal investigation into the case of Mr. Portugal and expressed the hope that this would lead to the prosecution of those responsible. In this regard, it reported that on March 8, 2010 the Second Superior Court of Justice initiated criminal proceedings against eight accused and dismissed the case against two persons. The Attorney General’s Office appealed the decision with regard to one of these persons. Similarly, the State indicated that as part of this proceeding two hearings were convened, on July 7, 2010 and June 29, 2011. Initially, the State indicated that the hearing of July 2010 was postponed due to the appeal filed by the Attorney General’s Office. Subsequently, Panama stated that the hearing was postponed due to the fact that some parties were not notified. In addition, it reported on some of the steps taken regarding the extradition process of one of the accused. Finally, it indicated that there are no de jure or de facto obstacles that impede the investigations, and that the “next of kin […] have had access to the case file of the proceedings, were heard in person and through the affidavits in the case file […] and in [these] they made petitions that have been resolved and addressed.” 7. The representatives referred to the lack of substantial progress made in the investigation of the facts. Furthermore, among other claims, they pointed out that “the facts of the case are being investigated under the criminal definition of homicide, which excludes the investigation, prosecution and punishment of several conducts associated with the forced disappearance of persons, including the torture suffered by Mr. Portugal.” They noted that the State “has not submitted copies of the investigation procedures carried out,” as required in the Order, “and it has not referred to the lines of investigation followed in the proceedings carried out at the domestic level.” Similarly, they emphasized that “the hearing set for June 29, 2011 did [not] take place” and that there have been setbacks in the extradition process of one of the accused because certain “documents related [to the process] had to be sent back to France due to omissions in the translation, which implies a further delay.” They also pointed out that it is unreasonable to delay the hearing for one year due to the fact that the parties were not notified. Finally, they stated that “the victim’s next of kin have not had access to the proceedings and have not been informed of the measures carried out.” 8. The Commission made similar observations to those of the representatives and, inter alia, noted the lack of progress made in the investigation, pointing out that although more than 18 months had elapsed since the Court issued the Order of March 8, 2010, the State continues to report that it has not been able to notify it to all parties involved in the proceedings. The Commission “consider [ed] it necessary that the State […] explain the reasons why procedural problems of notification or of another type prevent progress in the legal proceedings.” It added that “the State abstained from explaining the reasons why the investigation is limited to the crime of homicide, and why other alternatives have not been explored so that any liabilities eventually determined are consistent with the repeated and continued nature of the offenses during the decades of Mr. Portugal’s forced disappearance.” The Commission concluded that “the State is not fulfilling this part of the Judgment with the diligence necessary to properly investigate the facts and determine the corresponding liabilities.” 9. In its Order of May 28, 2010 the Court recalled that pursuant to its obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State has the duty to prevent and fight impunity, which the Court has defined as “the overall failure to investigate, search, arrest, prosecute and convict those responsible for human rights violations protected by the American Convention.” In this regard, the Court has 3