43 144. Additionally, the Court considers that state authorities are obligated to collaborate in gathering evidence to achieve the goals of an investigation, and must abstain from performing acts which constitute obstructions to the investigation process155. In the instant case the Secretary of Defense refused to provide certain documentation required by the courts, arguing that the documentation had been burned or does not exist (supra para. 87). The Court deems that for the current investigation this negative response has meant, among other, preventing the identification of those who participated in the planning and execution of the massacre, as well as the personal information of those already accused in the proceeding. 145. In relation to the above, the Court considers that the threats and intimidations suffered by the witnesses who gave their statements in the domestic proceeding156 cannot be seen separately, but must be considered within the framework of obstacles to the investigation of the case. Consequently, such facts are other means of perpetuating impunity in the instant case and preventing clarification of the truth of what occurred. 146. Lastly, in relation to the exhumations performed, the Court observes that although until 1995 the State initiated a series of acts to exhume and identify the individuals who were killed in the massacre, it did not continue performing actions to search and locate the rest of the people killed. Likewise, the State has not taken steps to identify the skeletons already located, so as to end the suffering and damages to the alleged victims of the case for these facts (supra para. 86 and infra para. 246 and 247)157. 147. In this regard, the Court calls to mind that within the duty to investigate exists the right of the victim’s next of kin to know what happened to them, and, when applicable, to know where their remains lay158. It is the State’s responsibility to satisfy these fair expectations using the means at its disposal. 148. The Court considers that the State has not fully assumed the investigation of the facts of the massacre as an obligation, and that the investigation, search, arrest, prosecution, and eventual punishment of all those responsible have not been managed effectively, to fully and thoroughly examine the multiple infringements caused on the population of Las Dos Erres community. Likewise, the investigation has not been directed toward the determination and delivery of the remains of those who died in the massacre. Finally the State has not performed with due diligence the acts necessary to execute the arrest warrants that are in force, nor provided the collaboration required by the courts so as to clarify the facts. All of this to the detriment of knowing the truth of what occurred. 155 Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 140, para. 112. 156 The State has provided protection and economic aid to those individuals who were obliged to leave the country, through the Law on the Protection of Procedural Subjects and Individuals connected with the Administration of Criminal Justice. 157 The exhumation work began on July 4, 1994, and 162 were found at the site known as the well of Las Dos Erres. Similarly, between May 8, 1995 and July 15, 1995 the exhumation of bodies continued in the sites of La Aguada and Los Salazares, as well as the identification of 71 other persons, regarding which the Judge of the case dismissed the request for registration (supra para. 86). From the parties’ claims in their main briefs and the public hearing, it derives that the majority of the bodies found remain unidentified to date, and there are others which have not been located. 158 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 30, para. 181; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 113, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 23, para. 116.