e) Conclusion 121. The delay in the investigation and proceedings of more than 12 years from the date of the events until the final judicial decision in 2014 cannot be explained by the complexity of the proceedings or the conduct of the alleged victims, but rather by dilatory conduct that can be attributed to the State. Sixteen years after the death of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez it has not been possible for the courts to determine those responsible for the facts of the case. Therefore, the Court finds grounds to conclude that there has been a violation of the principle of a reasonable time contained in Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the family of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez, owing to the excessive duration of the investigation and proceedings in relation to their deaths. Moreover, when the Admissibility Report was issued, on July 24, 2008, the judicial proceedings had already been inactive for three and a half years (supra para. 118.a), and this also justifies the fact that, at that time, it was possible to conclude that there had been an unjustified delay in violation of the principle of the reasonable time. B.3. Alleged lack of investigation and adoption of measures of protection for the family members of the alleged victims 122. The Court recalls that, to guarantee due process, the State must facilitate all necessary means to protect the agents of justice, investigators, witnesses and family members of victims from harassment and threats designed to hinder the proceedings, avoid the clarification of the facts or conceal those responsible for the latter; if not, this would have a threatening and intimidating effect on investigators and potential witnesses, seriously compromising the effectiveness of the investigation.156 123. The Commission and the representatives have argued that, during the investigation, the alleged victims’ family members suffered repeated threats and acts of intimidation that the State failed to conduct a diligent investigation into. According to the representatives, on May 2, 2003, the Díaz Loreto family reported to the authorities that Aragua state police had threatened to shoot and kill Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, Bladimir Díaz Loreto, Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Octavio Díaz, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Alexandra Gualdrón, Enmary Cava and Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto.157 124. In this regard, the State indicated that, on July 2, 2003, measures of protection had been adopted in favor of Dinorah Díaz Loreto, Octavio Díaz, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Alexandra Gualdrón and Enmary Dahina Cava, by order of the Trial Court of the Judicial Circuit of Aragua state, acting as the Tenth Supervisory Court.158 Therefore, Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Bladimir Díaz Loreto and Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto were excluded from the measures of protection without the State having provided a reasonable justification for that decision. 125. This Court notes that, on May 27, 2003, the Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state adopted measures of protection in favor of the following family members: Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, Octavio Díaz, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Alexandra Gualdrón and Enmary Dahina Cava.159 Despite this, according to the representatives, on June 4, 2003, Jairo Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, para. 199, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, para. 253. 156 Cf. Report of the family members filed before the sixteenth prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on May 2, 2003 (evidence file, folios 3881 to 3887). 157 Cf. Decision of the First Supervisory Trial Court of the Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of July 2, 2003 (evidence file, folios 3890 to 3892). 158 Cf. Decision of the First Supervisory Trial Court of the Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of May 27, 2003 (evidence file, folios 835 to 837). 159 -37-