mechanisms for its development and the search for the truth. Thus, several failings arose within the investigation, since the process did not make use of all the means of evidence available, including those proposed by the relatives, who pointed out that they had to propel the investigation forward at different stages. They also indicated that the investigation remained in the initial stages and in the most absolute impunity. The representatives further argued that none of the three hypotheses that emerged during the investigation were conclusively proven or ruled out, not because of the complexity of the case, but because of negligent action by the State. In this regard, they specified each of the failings that they attributed to the State. Furthermore, they held that the State did not investigate the threats and harassment suffered by the family of A.A., both before and after his death, which were known to the authorities, and that at no time did the State take into account the alleged gravity of the situation they faced after his death, which could constitute a lack of due diligence. On this point, they explained that, although it is true that the victim’s relatives did not immediately file a complaint before the Public Prosecution Service concerning the alleged threats, intimidation and harassment they suffered, the State knew about these incidents because they had been reported to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. It was evident, then, that the information contained in the file regarding the possible connection with A.A.’s death was ignored. Likewise, the investigating body would have known about it through subsequent statements rendered before the Prosecutor’s Office by members of family A. In addition, the representatives indicated that, as consequence of this denial of justice, “the psychological and moral integrity of the members of family [A] has been seriously affected […].” 197. The State pointed out that the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection are duly regulated under domestic law. It added that it could not have violated Mr. A. A.’s rights, since he had never attempted to make use of the judicial bodies to exercise them in connection with the events that led to his death. It also argued that within its organization, the State clearly provides for the respective judicial guarantees for the direct relatives of the victims, and that B.A. would have had access to all the remedies before the competent bodies to file her complaints, applications, reports and recommendations. It held that it could not be accused of omissions or a lack of diligence in the investigation, since it had carried out numerous procedures to clarify the facts. However, it was unable to proceed with the trial because it had not been possible to attribute A. A.’s death to any individual. This was not due to a lack of will, or a lack of diligence, but rather to the complexity of the matter and the range of possible causes found by the Public Prosecution Service. According to the State, the procedures established by law at the time of the events were fully observed. It also emphasized that, had it been unwilling to investigate, legal means were available within the proceeding that could have been used to complete the investigation, since according to Guatemalan law, if the prosecutor in charge of the investigation or the Supervising Judge considers that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges within a reasonable time, the case may eventually suspended, provisionally closed or archived. 198. The State also affirmed that, “although the procedures carried out at the time of the facts were not perfect, with the passage of time the State has gradually corrected these weaknesses, adopting a number of measures that today [would make…] the procedure for removing the body and the method of collecting evidence more uniform and ordered.” In addition, it expressed concern that the Commission should assess the investigations based on the United Nations Manual for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), “as though it were a well-known case of extrajudicial execution in which the participation of State agents was unquestionable.” Finally, the State argued that although the petitioners had adduced that the supposed threats suffered by the presumed victims after Mr. A.A.’s death were not investigated, they did not file any complaints to report this to the State, as required by law, but did so through third parties. B) Considerations of the Court 199. The Court has established that, pursuant to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective legal remedies to the victims of human rights 59