54 effective, since they have not been able to fulfill the objective of the preliminary proceedings of the process […]. 150. The situation mentioned by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has not changed in the eleven years after the occurrence of the facts or in the four years after having issued the mentioned opinion. In the criminal processing before the First Criminal Court of First Instance of Tegucigalpa a lower court ruling has not yet been issued, in breach of a reasonable time. This Tribunal considers, as it has stated in other cases that said delay, excessively extended, is per se a violation to the right to a fair trial, which has not been justified by the State.89 151. The above proves the lack of diligence in the impulse of procedures oriented to investigating, prosecuting, and, in its case, punishing all those responsible. The function of the judicial bodies that intervene in the proceedings does not end with providing a due process that guarantees the defense in the trial, but it must also ensure, in a reasonable period of time,90 the right of the victim or his next of kin to know the truth of what happened, as well as the punishment of the resulting responsible parties.91 The right to an effective judicial protection demands that the judges that direct the process avoid unnecessary delays and obstructions, which lead to impunity and frustrate the due judicial protection of human rights.92 152. Likewise, in the case sub judice the relationship of the State agents, allegedly responsible of participating in the extrajudicial killing of the victims, with the facts of the case has not been fully investigated; reason for which the corresponding criminal responsibilities for said facts has not been determined. After several requests of the Public Prosecutors’ Office, on February 9, 2005 the First Criminal Court of First Instance issued arrest warrants against three of the accused, Messrs. José Alberto Alfaro Martínez, Víctor Hugo Vivas Lozano, and Roxana Sierra Ramírez, but these orders have not had any effectiveness. Among those accused, the only detainee, Mr. José Alberto Alfaro Martínez, turned himself in voluntarily. The State has not adopted specific measures to make the investigation, processing, and, in its case, the punishment of those responsible effective. 153. Taking into account the acknowledgment made by the State and the body of evidence of the present case, the tribunal finds that the lack of promptness in the investigation and the negligence of the judicial authorities in performing a serious and full investigation of the facts that would lead to their elucidation and to the prosecution of those responsible, is a gross offense to the duty to investigate and offer an effective recourse that may establish the truth of the facts, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for them, and guarantee the access to justice for the next of kin of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos, and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez in complete 89 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 203; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 153; and Case of López Alvarez, supra note 55, para. 128; 90 Cfr. Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 69, para. 188; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 9, para. 209; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 54, para. 114. 91 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 55; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 206; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 289. 92 Cfr. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 9, para. 210; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 54, para. 115.