88 testimonies obtained, the inspection of the place where they were discovered, the lists of the evidence gathered, and the identification reports.” 349. In this regard, the Tribunal has indicated in its jurisprudence that a State may be responsible when “evidence that could have been very important for the due clarification of the [violations is] not ordered, practiced or evaluated.”384 350. In the instant case, the Head of the Joint Public Prosecutors’ Office to Investigate the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez received the criminal case file for the cotton field deaths on March 9, 2006, after the judgment of October 13, 2004, convicting the only individual who had been charged with the crimes had been revoked on July 14, 2005.385 The Tribunal finds that, without any justification, the investigations were paralyzed for almost eight months following the conviction was revoked. 351. Furthermore, prior to the public hearing, the Court was informed of the results of the second stage of the investigations and the work plan of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.386 However, the measures announced by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the investigation have not led to any results, such as the examination of certain items of clothing, new DNA analyses, and investigation of those presumably responsible. 352. Lastly, the Tribunal underscores that it will be difficult to rectify the irregularities that occurred during the first stage of the investigations, which the State has acknowledged, by the belated and insufficient probative measures that the State has taken since 2006. Proof of this is that, although eight years have elapsed since the facts occurred; the investigation has not advanced beyond the preliminary phase. 4.2.2.4. Alleged irregularities regarding the fragmentation of the investigations and its alleged impact on creating impunity The Court observes that the dispute between the parties concerning the fragmentation of the investigations relates to three distinct issues: (a) the alleged irregularities in the initiation of an investigation into organ trafficking and the failure to coordinate this with the investigation into disappearances and murders; (b) the alleged need for the federal jurisdiction to hear this case, and (c) the alleged irregularities arising from investigating the three cases separately. (a) Alleged irregularities in the initiation of an investigation into organ trafficking and the failure to coordinate this with the investigation into the disappearances and murders 353. The eight cotton field deaths were investigated together by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR) between 2003 and 2006. Under the federal jurisdiction, it investigated the possible connection with organized crime, in particular 384 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 31, para. 230. 385 Cf. decision of March 9, 2006, of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, Northern Zone, Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez in preliminary inquiry file 27913/01-I (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, folio 10184) and decision of the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the state of Chihuahua of July 14, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume X, attachment 83, folios 3422 to 3500). 386 Testimony of witness Caballero Rodríguez at the public hearing held on April 28, 2009.