161. At the same time, the Court has ruled that “judges, based on the principle of effective judicial protection, should [act] with due diligence, ensuring prompt trial proceedings.”249 The IACHR also observes that there was an unjustified delay on the part of the judicial authorities in conducting various formalities, together with periods of time without any follow-up measures or additional formalities. 162. Similarly, the Commission notes that the security of some of the individuals involved in the trial was compromised. 163. On this point, in the cases of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras and López Luna v. Honduras, the Court ruled that threats against trial witnesses can have an intimidating and discouraging effect on those in charge of investigations and potential witnesses, seriously affecting the effectiveness of the investigation. 250 For that reason, States are under the obligation to “provide all necessary measures to protect the (...) investigators, witnesses and families of the victims from harassment and threats aimed at obstructing the proceeding and preventing elucidation of the facts, as well as covering up those responsible.”251 164. Thus, the IACHR observes that Orlando Martínez, one of the alleged physical perpetrators of the homicide against Carlos Escaleras, was murdered about a month after the incident. The Commission notes that several witnesses stated that they were being harassed and threatened. In addition, mention should be made of the pressure brought to bear on the perpetrator Lucas García Alfaro while he was being held in prison. Also, Mr. Escaleras’s brother was fired from his job with one of the suspected masterminds. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates the State’s adoption of protective measures or its investigation of the sources of the threats and harassment. Neither does the Commission have any information on investigations following the death of Orlando Martínez or on any analysis of that crime in connection with the investigation into Carlos Escaleras’s death. 165. In addition to that killing, the record also indicates that the DGIC officer who incriminated Congressman Salomón Martínez and Miguel Facussé in Carlos Escaleras’s murder stated that he was subjected to pressure and later dismissed from his position on account of his investigations. 166. In light of all the above considerations, the Commission finds that in the later stages of the investigation there was a serious lack of diligence in preserving, securing, and assessing evidence that linked various individuals, including state officials, to the crime. Moreover, the Commission notes that during the investigation there were serious incidents of possible reprisals and pressure against people involved in the proceedings, in spite of which no investigation into those facts was conducted. 167. It should be noted that in several of its submissions to the IACHR, the State acknowledged the shortcomings in the investigation and even recognized that because of them, the rights of the next of kin did not receive effective protection. In the State’s words, Honduras “to a large extent [lacks] the scientific means for casting light on complex crimes,” and there were “various shortcomings in the investigation into the facts of Mr. Carlos Escaleras Mejía’s murder, and as a result of those shortcomings, the right of Mr. Escaleras and his family to a fair trial was not effectively protected.” 168. In conclusion, from the analysis offered above, the Commission finds that the State failed to meet its duty of clarifying the Mr. Carlos Escaleras’s murder by uncovering the truth and identifying and punishing all the people responsible for it, including the physical perpetrators and the masterminds behind it. 249 I/A Court H. R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, para. 170; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C No. 101, para. 210. 250 I/A Court H. R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 106; Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, para. 173. 251 I/A Court H. R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 107; Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, para. 173. 32