60 respectively, filed criminal accusations for the arrest and forced disappearance of their father, “against those who resulted responsible.” (supra para. 183) During the public hearing (supra para. 9), Mrs. Tita Radilla stated that at first the Agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office did not want to receive the accusation of May 14, 1999 because they were going to “fire him”. Likewise, she stated that “[a]t a certain point a car full of soldiers arrived outside the Public Prosecutors’ Office, [that] they did nothing, they just stood there,” and that they had to “pressure” the Public Prosecutors’ Office, saying they were going to go on a hunger strike. The accusation was finally received close to 12 midnight. 199. The Tribunal observes that in the accusation of May 14, 1999 (supra para. 183), Mrs. Tita Radilla also referred to the negative of the cabinet authority to receive that accusation, and stated that, among others, the person that had helped her had told her that the action had expired because “[s]he waited twenty-five years to denounce [the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco],”202 to which Tita Radilla responded that an agreement should be issued substantiating and motivating why the action had expired. These facts were not contested by the State. 200. The State of Mexico made no reference whatsoever to the possible processes or specific actions carried out as a consequence of the complaints filed in 1992 and 1999. However, it indicated that they were sent to reservation “for lack of indicia for the determination of the possible responsible parties.”203 (supra para. 183) The aforementioned confirms that, even when it had received a formal communication of the facts, the State did not act consequently with its duty to immediately start a comprehensive investigation. 201. For the Court, the lack of a State response is a decisive element upon assessing if their has been a non-compliance with the content of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, since they are directly linked to the principle of effectiveness that shall be met by the development of those investigations.204 In the present case the State, after receiving the complaint filed in 1992, should have carried out a serious and impartial investigation, with the objective of offering, within a reasonable period of time, a determination resolving the merits of the circumstances brought before it. (b) b.1) Investigations as of the year 2000 Effectiveness of the investigations 202. The State made reference to a series of diligences carried out, mainly, as of the year 2002,205 as of the creation of the Special Prosecutors’ Office (supra para. 186), based on which they requested that the Court “[w]eigh the enormous efforts made to achieve the elucidation of the facts.” In this sense, it argued that in the present case “there is no impunity, since the investigation continues [and] the authorities are exhausting all the means within their reach to avoid [it].” In any case, the Tribunal observes that the State of 202 Cf. Accusation filed before the Agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Common Jurisdiction of the city of Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero, on May 14, 1999 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix D(20), folio 1906). 203 Cf. Respondent’s plea (dossier on merits, volume II, folio 695) and brief of final arguments of the State (dossier of merits, volume IX, folio 2786). 204 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 19, para. 115; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 257, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 23, para. 79. 205 Cf. Respondent’s plea (dossier of merits, volume II, folios 695 through 715).