41 address, which he suspected could be near the “Casa de Miraflores,” an alleged clandestine interrogation and torture center during the first years of the military dictatorship. The witness related that a man was held prisoner in the room next to the one in which he was detained, and, during interrogations, he heard it said that his name was Heliodoro Portugal; they interrogated and tortured the latter, asking him whether he knew Floyd Britton, an opposition leader (supra para. 87). This indicates that other people were also presumably disappeared by acts or omissions of State agents at the time Mr. Portugal was detained. In this regard, according to the Report of the Truth Commission, during the military dictatorship there were at least 40 forced disappearances in Panama (supra para. 85). This context was not adequately taken into account by the judicial authorities in order to determine patterns and common practices among the different disappearances or those possibly responsible within the armed forces. It was not until 2000 that the Prosecutor’s Office summoned members of the security forces to testify, despite the indications provided in the statements made by Mr. Portugal’s next of kin and friends in 1990 and 1991 (supra paras. 127 and 128). 154. Moreover, the State was unable to acquire the documents from the Panamanian Armed Forces that the United States Government obtained following the 1989 invasion and which could have provided information on what happened to Heliodoro Portugal. On this point, the Court finds it necessary to emphasize that, in the context of presumed human rights violations, States should collaborate with each other in judicial matters, so that the pertinent investigations and judicial proceedings can be conducted adequately and promptly. 155. In addition, it is pertinent to emphasize that, even though on November 30, 2007, the Second Superior Court ordered the re-opening of the preliminary proceedings, based on the fact that the identity of the possible author of the detention of Heliodoro Portugal was known, the name of this person was already known and formed part of the evidence gathered in the criminal action as the result of a statement taken on April 4, 2001 (supra para. 138). The Prosecutor General who testified before the Court described the failure to verify this information as a possible “omission in the proceedings.” Having focused all its efforts on convicting the head of the barracks where the remains of Heliodoro Portugal were found, presuming that he knew everything that took place there, the State failed to follow up on other lines of investigation to seek all those allegedly responsible, both the masterminds and the perpetrators. As a result, 18 years after Patria Portugal filed a report before the Judiciary, the criminal action is still open.”126 156. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the time that has elapsed greatly exceeded the time that could be considered reasonable for the State to complete a criminal action. This delay has given rise to an evident denial of justice and a violation of the right of access to justice of the next of kin of Mr. Portugal,127 especially taking into account that the case was only recently re-opened in 2007 and, therefore, that the time required for conducting the criminal action, with its different stages up until the final judgment, must be added to the time that has already elapsed. 157. The Court finds that the State’s failure to respond is a determinant factor when assessing whether there has been a failure to comply with the contents of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, because it bears a direct relationship to the principle of 126 127 Testimony given by Ana Matilde Gómez, before the Inter-American Court, supra note 52. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo, supra note 124, para. 80; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 87, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 126.