172. Similarly, Prosecutor Omar Menjívar indicated that, “he directly receive[d] threats from José Ángel Rosa, [who was] implicated as the intellectual author, at the court itself in front of the Judge.”268 Prosecutor Adalgicia Chinchilla Suazo also asked the Director of the Prosecutors to remove her from the case, arguing that she had been threatened. Moreover, Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez, the material author and main witness, stated that while in jail he had received death threats from the presumed perpetrators of the murder of Carlos Luna. As a result, he was transferred to another prison. Subsequently he was murdered in a maximum security cell in that prison. Furthermore, César Luna, son of Carlos Luna, stated that “[when] the family became involved in the proceedings [,] they [were] also harassed and threatened by […] the intellectual authors of the crime.” 269 During the proceedings other witnesses also stated that they had received threats.”270 173. Regarding the obstructions in the process, this Court has stated that to ensure due process, the State must provide all necessary measures to protect the legal operators, 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.271 Otherwise this would have an intimidating and discouraging effect on those in charge of investigations and on potential witnesses, seriously affecting the effectiveness of the investigation.272 174. In this regard, the Court considers that, even though the presumed threats were partially reported to the competent domestic judicial authorities and could have created a climate of insecurity among the legal operators and witnesses (infra paras. 209 to 212), it was not demonstrated that such incidents impeded the normal course of the criminal process in this case. B.1.2.3. Regarding the proceedings against the alleged perpetrators 175. The investigations against the presumed perpetrators began on May 19, 1998, under file 1128-98 which was processed in the Catacamas Magistrates Criminal Court (supra para. 47). The process concluded with a judgment issued on December 11, 2002, against Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez, who was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for the murder of Mr. Luna López and 6 years imprisonment for serious injuries against Mrs. Silvia Gonzales (supra para. 69). As for the other likely perpetrators, on February 12, 1999, in response to a request from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, an order was given to divide the investigation 268 Statement of Prosecutor Omar Menjívar in the public hearing before the Court, supra. 269 Statement of César Luna Valle at the public hearing before the Court, supra. In this statement César Luna Valle stated that “the greatest threat, which was about to be consummated, was that José Ángel Rosa had hired killers and they put his money together with others to kill [him, and he became] aware of this while in Tegucigalpa and he never return[ed] to having a normal life” (Public hearing before the Court, supra, pages 6 and 7). 270 Cf. Statements of: Danilo Zapata rendered on October 26, 1998 (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 583); Teodora Ruíz Escoto on November 30, 1998 (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 446); of Berta Oliva on April 22, 2002 (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 430); Luis Felipe Rosales López on November 19, 1998 (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 441); and Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández on August 24, 1998 (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 418) (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 1019). 271 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra, para. 199 and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C, No.221, para. 255. 272 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 106. In this respect, Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time of the events, indicated that “[t]he statement will be taken without oaths or coercion. Furthermore, Article 368(5) of the same body of laws indicated that within the legal assessment of the evidence, the Court should take into account, inter alia, “[t]hat the witness has not been forced, by coercion or fear, nor led by deception, error or bribery or any other circumstance inhibiting him from testifying freely.” 53