First Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Portoviejo (supra paras. 58 and 62). 97. This Court observes that neither the Inter-American Commission nor the representatives have questioned the validity of the respective criminal proceedings as a whole, even though they indicated that the measures taken by the State were not sufficient to make an adequate inquiry into the possible participation in the facts of either State agents or other private individuals (supra paras. 66, 69 and 70). For its part, the State indicated that the perpetrators of the facts were punished and, therefore, “it had complied with the purpose for which [the proceedings] were held.” It added that the determination of the existence of masterminds and accessories after the fact is a task reserved to the domestic judicial authorities (supra paras. 73 to 75). 98. Regarding the arguments of the Commission and representatives that other individuals could have taken part in the facts, besides those who actually perpetrated them, this Court observes that this was considered by the domestic judicial authorities themselves. In this regard, it underscores the order of March 18, 2000, in which the XIth Judge of Manabí required that the court order to investigate the crime be extended to various individuals (supra para. 47) 99. In addition, the proven facts reveal that the determination of the individuals against whom criminal indictments were filed was made in three decisions: the indictment of December 26, 2000 (supra para. 56), the order to open the plenary proceedings of January 22, 2001 (supra para. 58), and the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Portoviejo of February 16, 2001 (supra paras. 59 and 60). These decisions were taken after some members of Mr. Palma Mendoza’s family had discontinued the civil actions they had filed. Nevertheless, as revealed by the reasoning set out in the said decisions, they were not based on the said discontinuances, but on weighing probative measures taken in the case. 100. In other words, the State did in fact investigate the possible criminal responsibility of individuals, other than those who it finally found to be the perpetrators of the facts. According to the evidence provided to the Court, the findings adopted by the State authorities were based on their assessment of the different pieces of evidence. This assessment was founded, because the respective decisions included justified reasons, and no evident arbitrariness can be noted in them. 118 Consequently, this Court does not find elements that would allow it to consider that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to investigate the possible participation in the facts of other individuals. 101. Finally, regarding the suggested possible implication of State agents, it should be noted that, in this case, there has been a judicial determination of the persons considered responsible for the facts that involved the deprivation of life and subsequent death of Mr. Palma Mendoza, which indicated that the said facts were perpetrated by private individuals. When reaching this conclusion, the domestic judicial bodies that intervened considered that certain facts had been proved, without indicating the responsibility of State agents in them. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in any case, the possible lack of certainty about the involvement of State agents in the said facts cannot lead the Court to conclude that this involvement existed.119 The Court does not have sufficient probative elements that would reveal that the State did not investigate those responsible for the facts effectively. 118 Regarding the concept of “reasoning” cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 107, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 141. 119 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, para. 242. 31