embargoed for two years. According to the petitioners, that had negatively impacted Mrs. Acosta's assets. They added that in June 2002, Messrs. Tsokos and Martínez denounced María Luisa Acosta for the offenses of false testimony and false accusation. They pointed out that those proceedings were resolved in Mrs. Acosta's favor toward the end of 2004. Consequently, according to the petitioners, instead of seeing justice done in respect of the murder of her husband, María Luisa Acosta had been accused, sued, and displaced. They further indicate that the State had offered her no protection or judicial guarantees. On the contrary, it had allowed the system to wreak a series of abuses against her. 12. The details regarding the facts and the investigation process in connection with Mr. García Valle's death will be described in the Commission's analysis of the facts based on the information supplied by both Parties. Following is a summary of the main legal arguments put forward by the petitioners. 13. With respect to the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the petitioners pointed out that the authorities failed to meet their obligation to conduct an investigation and appropriate judicial proceedings conducive to punishment of all those responsible. Specifically, they underscored the following irregularities: a) although it was known that a third perpetrator existed, there is no evidence of any procedure to identify him and bring him to trial; b) following the capture of Iván Argüello, the judge in the case did not take a statement from him, as the injured party, María Luisa Acosta, had requested; c) no pronouncements had been made regarding the requests by the Public Prosecutor's office to reopen the investigations into Messrs. Tsokos and Martínez in connection with the facts denounced; and d) despite the hard evidence linking those two individuals to the facts, that evidence was ignored by the corresponding judicial authorities, who therefore failed to their duty, which was to assess all the evidence. Among the evidence, the petitioners pointed in particular to a National Police crime laboratory expert opinion that allegedly showed that the weapon used to murder Mr. García Valle belonged to Mr. Martínez, and to documents showing links, prior to the murder, between Peter Tsokos and Iván Argüello. 14. Furthermore, they stated that the remedies had become ineffective because there had been an evident intention on the part of the judges to obstruct access to them. Proof of that, according to the petitioners, was that all the appeals they and the Public Prosecution Service (Ministerio Público) had filed to have the proceedings declared null and void because of the alleged irregularities had been rejected or sidelined by the authorities through baseless and erroneous resolutions. They added that the State had also failed to investigate the complaints lodged by María Luisa Acosta with the Committee for Disciplinary Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter "the Disciplinary Committee") in connection with the irregularities committed by the judges. 15. They cited as a violation of these rights the voiding of the appeal against the judgment dismissing the case against Peter Martínez and Peter Tsokos, which rendered that judgment final. They stressed that that decision had been based on an alleged failure of Mrs. Acosta's attorney to provide paper for photocopying the judgment when in fact the clerks of the court had prevented him from meeting that requirement, which, in any case, had been abolished. They pointed out that the State was attempting to make them responsible for the fact that the judgment had become final. 16. As regards the right to personal integrity to the detriment of María Luisa Acosta and the other family members of Mr. García Valle, the petitioners pointed to the failure to establish the truth of what had happened, as well as their severe anguish and anxiety due to the State's actions and omissions. They mentioned the constant fear felt by María Luisa Acosta and her children that they would be victims of another attack. Specifically in relation to María Luisa Acosta, they indicated that the exhausting criminal proceedings following the murder of her husband, the proceedings initiated against her, and the threat posed by the impunity of the crime against Mr. García Valle, had led to a deterioration in her health, self-esteem, and finances." For their part, her children's school performance had deteriorated, among other consequences. 17. Finally, the Commission notes that the petitioners continued to allege violations of the rights established in article 4 (right to life) and article 11 (right to privacy/honor respected and dignity recognized) of the Convention, even though they had been declared inadmissible in the admissibility report. As regards the right to life, they pointed out that the State had not adopted the measures needed to carry out a serious