guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 4(1) and 1(1) of that international instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza. 64. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission noted that, in this case, “the complaint filed before the Ecuadorian authorities was not limited to the fact that Mr. Palma Mendoza was missing, [but rather] it also mentioned the violent nature of the incident.” The Commission indicated that “the very nature of the facts denounced should have made the victim’s situation of extreme risk evident to the State authorities.” It indicated that “when there are reasonable reasons to suspect that a person has been disappeared, the prompt and immediate action of the judicial and prosecutorial authorities is essential.” In addition, it stressed that: There were reasonable measures that could have been adopted and were not adopted. The mechanisms available were limited to sending official notes and taking statements without following up on the information resulting from these preliminary measures [and] without following up on relevant elements derived from these statements. 65. Regarding the discovery and identification of Mr. Palma Mendoza’s body, the Commission stated that “the procedure was conducted without the presence of qualified technical personnel” and that “the omissions in gathering the minimum amount of evidence that would have allowed prompt and adequate identification of the body that was found and, consequently, the clarification of the circumstances surrounding the facts, their motives and the possible perpetrators, are evident in this case”; thus there were “deficiencies as regards the due diligence that the State should have exercised when carrying out the removal of the body and the investigation of the case.” 66. Furthermore, regarding other aspects of the investigation during the period between May 1997 and February 2000, the Commission emphasized that, “on June 9, 1998, [Lidia Bravo] informed [the OID] of the presumed participation in the events of Lenin Ordóñez, without any measure being taken to determine the truth of the information provided.” It also asserted that “the obligation to investigate and to punish any act that involves a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the punishment of the perpetrators, but also of the masterminds of such acts, and the accessories after the fact” and that, in this case, “the judicial authorities ordered a stay of proceedings for the supposed masterminds […] based on the discontinuance of the civil action of some of his next of kin and not on the evidence.” It added that, “[i]n addition to the deficiencies apparent since the complaint and following the finding of the corpse, […] in this case, there are several indicators that point to possible degrees of participation in the facts by State agents. These possible links have not been confirmed or dismissed by the courts.” It also indicated that “the confession of Lenin Ordoñez […] indicated that those who perpetrated the abduction used their credentials as former members of the Armed Forces to pass through the police controls when transporting Mr. Palma.” Therefore, it indicated that “the respective authorities failed to open lines of investigation aimed at clarifying any indication of direct or indirect participation by State agents.” The Commission also stated in the Admissibility and Merits Report that, in this case, the proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. 103 67. Furthermore, the Inter-American Commission considered that: 103 It indicated that the case “was not complex, as the pickup truck in which Mr. Palma [Mendoza] was abducted was parked on the street hours before the abduction and many people saw its occupants. […] Additionally, Mr. Palma’s corpse appeared on May 26, 1997.” Moreover, it stated that “the actions of the authorities [were] inadequate and without due diligence.” Lastly, it asserted that “with regard to the procedural activity of the interested parties, […] the State had the obligation to conduct an investigation, ex officio, without any need for the participation of the interested parties.” 23