2. Analysis of the case 80. The Commission notes that the investigation began on the same day of the facts. From the investigative steps taken, the Public Prosecutor identified the four accused individuals. However, the Commission finds that the investigation as conducted thus far has not been exhaustive, in the sense that there is no indication that the accusations against other soldiers present in the prison that day, as well as prison guards implicated by testimony, were seriously investigated. Likewise, in light of evidence and reports of violations of personal integrity that day, there is no indication the State conducted any investigation to clarify the facts and, where applicable, establish the responsibility of the individuals involved.150 81. The Commission observes that the autopsies conducted do not meet the standards set forth in the Minnesota Protocol. Specifically, the Commission underscores the lack of analysis of the context of the deaths—including determination of possible patterns in the injuries to the bodies, the caliber of the firearms that caused the injuries, the distance from which shots were fired, and the lack of color photographs and fullbody x-rays—that could help clear up the circumstances of the deaths and identify the perpetrators. It is the IACHR's understanding that ballistics examinations and tests are included in the Public Prosecutor’s case file; however, it does not have access to them. In any case, the deficiencies in the autopsies are an obstacle to establishing the facts in light of other technical evidence that may have been gathered. 82. The Commission observes that the statements of the National Guard members (cited in the brief on the merits from the State), employ identical language and descriptions—for example, regarding the probable cause of death of the victims—which raise doubts as to whether these National Guard members may have been prepared together prior to giving statements to the Public Prosecutor. Likewise, the IACHR observes that the allegations that the National Guard improperly had access to evidence collected by the CICPC and that the witnesses to the facts were threatened have not been properly clarified. The issue of witness intimidation appears in multiple places in the case file and was even raised by the Public Prosecutor itself as part of the basis for requesting pretrial detention for the accused. Likewise, as described above, no line of investigation was designed and exhaustively conducted into the various indications that the deaths and injuries could have been in retaliation for the strike that had taken place days prior. 83. Regarding the reasonable time period, the Commission finds that although the investigation began on the day of the facts, the preliminary hearing in the case was not held until June 3, 2014, and there is no information to indicate that the trial has yet taken place. Although the State argued that the delays in the trial were due to procedural actions taken by the accused and their defense attorneys, the IACHR notes that these remedies were ruled on in 2005, and that no evidence has been requested or collected in the case since 2006. In this regard, it is not reasonable that the investigation phase concluded 2012. There is no information to indicate that the trial of the accused individuals has been carried out subsequent to that, for which reason the Commission concludes that the violation of the reasonable period of time in this case is manifest. 84. The State argued that the matter has a “reasonable level of complexity,” and said that the difficulties securing cooperation from witnesses that remain in the custody of the State bodies presumably responsible for the facts, as well as securing their cooperation once they were freed or transferred made investigating and trying the case difficult. In this regard, the Commission notes that because the witnesses who stated they were threatened by the National Guard were in the custody of the State, the State had not only the opportunity but also the duty to take the measures necessary to protect their lives and personal safety in order to facilitate their cooperation with the investigation. This is also in accordance with the standards established in the Minnesota Protocol and by inter-American case law. The case file indicates that this did not take place. 85. Likewise, the Commission finds that this case may be complex because it deals with dozens of victims and took place in a prison where the State’s control is limited—a situation that is also attributable to the State151 and which therefore does not excuse it from responsibility. However, because the investigation has been stalled since 2006, and there is no indication that during the course of the investigation, the State fully In this sense, see I/A Ct. H.R. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Judgment of August 27, 2014, para. 202. See Order of the Inter-American Court of May 15, 2011. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Matter of Internado Judicial de Ciudad Bolívar “Cárcel de Vista Hermosa.” 150 151 18