- 103 - the proceedings;386 alteration, concealment and destruction of evidence by State agents, 387 and also attempts at bribery or the theft of evidence;388 failure of State entities to collaborate with the authorities responsible for the investigation, 389 especially the refusal to provide information on the grounds that it relates to a State secret; 390 intervention of the military jurisdiction in facts that constitute human rights violations, 391 and application of amnesty laws.392 288. In this case, the Court notes that, despite the delays that the decree of confidentiality could have caused to the investigations (which will be duly analyzed below in relation to the reasonable time), this did not prevent the investigation from continuing once it had been lifted. Thus, the Court notes that when the confidentiality of the file had been lifted various criminal cases were opened and several of those probably responsible were charged and are currently under investigation. Consequently, although due diligence was clearly not complied with, the Court does not observe that the confidentiality of preliminary inquiry 466/2006 signified a form of obstruction of the investigations at the state level. 289. In the same way, with regard to the investigation at the federal level, there are no indications that the decision not to exercise the authority to transfer the jurisdiction of the state investigation to the federal level prevented the opening of subsequent investigations at the federal level and, therefore, it is not considered an act of obstruction. However, this is without prejudice to the lack of due diligence in the processing of the evidence presented by the victims (supra para. 284), and the State obligation to investigate all those responsible and to avoid omissions in following up on logical lines of investigation (infra para. 293). 290. Lastly, with regard to the argument concerning the obstruction of the victims’ access to the case files, neither the representatives nor the Commission have provided any evidence to support this. Moreover, the Court does not see any reason that would justify diverging from the general principle in relation to the burden of proof according to which, in principle, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proving the facts on which he bases his allegations. 393 Consequently, the 386 116. Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 57, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 172 and 174, Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299. paras. 241, 243, and 251, and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, paras. 231 and 232. 387 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 121. 388 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 269. 389 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 182. 390 Cf. Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, paras. 244, 245, 246 and 251. 391 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 232. 392 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 144, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 163. 393