66 the massacre of January 8, 1982. Furthermore, nine files were opened in relation to certain facts committed before and after said massacre. The Court will now consider the pertinent aspects of these investigations, in light of the standards set forth above. B.1. Lack of due diligence and obstruction B.1.1. File No. 001-2005-95839, opened in relation to the massacre of January 8, 1982 218. Based on an evaluation of Case File No. 001-2005-95839 before the Unit for Special Cases and Human Rights Violations of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, opened in 1993 as a result of a complaint filed regarding the massacre of January 8, 1982, 232 the Court confirmed the following. B.1.1.1. Lack of diligent and timely investigations 219. Although there was some investigative activity by the relevant authorities, not all the measures that should have been taken to clarify the facts and identify the possible perpetrators were exhausted, and several of the steps taken were due to the procedural initiative of the victims' next of kin. Likewise, the Court found that on several occasions the investigative activity ceased for long periods or there were delays in carrying out the procedures. 220. In this regard, the Court notes, first of all, that on August 10, 1993, the Departmental Medical Examiner delivered to the Criminal Court of First Instance, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Salamá, a box containing objects associated with the skeletal remains exhumed that year. 233 However, there is no record of any follow-up activity until February 5, 1998, when the Judge of First Instance asked the Justice of the Peace of Rabinal, who had been commissioned to perform the exhumation, to report on the actions taken. 234 After approximately four and a half years, this last action was carried out as a result of the procedural initiative of the victims' next of kin, who requested in December 1997 that the investigation be continued 235 and in January 1998 requested that the Justice of the Peace be asked to provide the file in which the exhumation was recorded. 236 221. Second, the Court notes that only seven people were identified out of at least 31 individuals whose remains were exhumed in May 1993 (supra paras. 91 and 105). 237 The file does not show any subsequent activity aimed at identifying the other victims. On this point, the Court has stated that, in cases of serious human rights violations, such as the ones in this case, the exhumation and identification of deceased victims is part of the State's obligation to investigate. Therefore, it is a duty that must be fulfilled ex officio, because “the obligation to investigate includes the right of the victim’s next of kin to know the victim’s fate and, if applicable, where his or her remains are located.” 238 To that extent, it is incumbent upon the State to satisfy these reasonable expectations with the means at its disposal. 232 Cf. Complaint of Ana Calate Sic filed on March 29, 1993 (evidence file, folios 729 and 730) and Ratification of the complaint of Ana Calate Sic filed on April 19, 1993 (evidence file, folios 718 to 721). 233 Among them, three “military registration documents”, a “credential of military reservists” and several rusted bullet casings “possibly of a caliber 22 pistol”. Cf. Report of the Departmental Forensic Medical Examiner of August 10, 1993 (evidence file, folios 655 to 658). 234 Cf. Official letter from the Judge of First Instance to the Justice of the Peace of Rabinal (evidence file, folio 628). 235 Cf. Brief presented by Miguel Sic, Fabiana Chen and Teresa Cacaj on December 5, 1997 to become joint plaintiffs (evidence file, folios 636 to 645). 236 Cf. Brief of Miguel Sic, Fabiana Chen and Teresa Cacaj submitted on January 29, 1998 (evidence file, folios 632 and 633). 237 Cf. Report of the Anthropological Forensic Investigation in the hamlet of Chichupac, presented by the EAFG in July 1993 (evidence file, folios 511, 540 and 541); Record of exhumation of bodies of the Justice of the Peace of Rabinal during the period from May 6 to 19, 1993 (evidence file, folios 665 to 688); Official letter No. 830/jixt sent by the Police Commissioner of Salamá on May 17, 1993 (evidence file, folios 689 to 692), and Official letter No. 856/jgc sent by the Police Commissioner of Salamá on May 20, 1993 (evidence file, folios 663 to 664). 238 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 181, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 217.