147. Against this backdrop, it concerns the IACHR that the threats persisted throughout the investigation, and that nine (9) relatives of Nelson Carvajal have consequently had to leave the country in 2006 and 2010 (supra para. 106). 148. The body of evidence shows that the threats and intimidation also affected key witnesses. Although the State implemented some measures permitted by the domestic laws at the time of the events— such as keeping the identity of the witnesses confidential—they were neither suitable nor sufficient. The case file reflects that Judith Carvajal Carvajal reported the breach of confidentiality in the investigation and the fact that copies of some of the proceedings conducted during the pretrial phase of the criminal proceeding had been turned over to different people in Pitalito with the intent to reveal the identity of the witnesses and frighten them into recanting or refusing to cooperate with the justice system in the case. At least two key witnesses received threats in this context. 149. The IACHR notes that although in 1999 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered the investigation of the alleged breach of confidentiality reported by Judith Carvajal, there is no indication that it took concrete steps to address the matter or that any results were obtained. On the contrary, the IACHR notes that, given the lack of progress, an investigator from the IAPA refiled the complaint before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judicial Council in 2006, but it was ruled that the statute of limitations had expired with regard to the acts alleged in the complaint. 150. The Commission also observes with concern that a key prosecution witness was murdered during the investigation after giving a statement that would be used by the Prosecutor’s Office to examine the possibility of filing a motion for the reconsideration of the acquittal of Fernando Bermúdez and others and the reopening of the investigation against them. The witness, Pablo Emilio Bonilla Betancurt, was a demobilized FARC combatant. The IACHR has no evidence with which to determine the reasons for his murder, but notes that according to the petitioner’s allegations, which the State does not dispute, the Witness Protection Office had reportedly denied his request for protection measures. The IACHR further observes that the State has not provided information concerning any investigations into the possible connection between his death and his participation as a witness in this case. This undoubtedly contributed to the threatening climate that surrounded this investigation. 151. In its Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, issued following its on-site visit in December 1997, the Commission indicated that, “The legitimate fear of public authorities involved in the administration of justice, as well as witnesses, also contributes to the ineffectiveness of criminal proceedings in human rights cases processed in the civilian justice system. Those responsible for human rights abuses sometimes ensure their impunity by threatening or attacking those who might contribute to a sanction against them.” Indeed, it reiterated that the fear of being a victim of some kind of retaliation has affected judges, attorneys, judicial police officers, and “witnesses who are key in determining the authorship of the facts under investigation and whose testimony can shed light on the facts and convict the guilty parties.”149 152. In view of the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission finds that the repeated threats and harassment of witnesses and relatives of the victim, in addition to the absence of protection measures and guarantees for an independent investigation, had an intimidating and chilling effect that discouraged the participation of complainants in the case and hampered the investigations and the criminal cases. In addition, the witnesses and relatives remained unprotected for a long period of time, which contributed to the failure to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators and to the maintenance of the barriers found when the relatives tried to participate in the processing of the case. Indeed, the IACHR observes with concern that during the processing of this case before the Inter-American system the petitioner has reported that the victim’s relatives are still fearful as a consequence of the events, and that most of them have left Colombia. 149 IACHR. Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. Chapter V (Administration of Justice and Rule of Law). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102. Doc. 9 rev. 1. February 26, 1999.