68 statements regarding the participation of certain persons whom they had previously accused of being responsible for the massacre of January 8, 1982. 224. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in order to guarantee due process, the State must facilitate all necessary means to protect justice operators, investigators, witnesses and the victims’ next of kin from harassment and threats aimed at hindering the proceedings, preventing the clarification of the facts and covering up for the perpetrators; otherwise, this would have a chilling and intimidating effect on investigators and potential witnesses, seriously affecting the effectiveness of the investigation. Indeed, the threats and intimidation suffered by witnesses in the domestic proceedings cannot be seen in isolation, but must be considered within the context of obstructions to the investigation of the case, since such acts become another means to perpetuate impunity and prevent the truth of what happened from being known. 249 225. Fifth, on December 5, 1997, and January 21 and May 12, 2000, Miguel Sic Osorio, Fabiana Chen Galiego and Teresa Cacaj Cahuec requested the judge of the Criminal Court of First Instance of Salamá and the District Prosecutor’s Office of Baja Verapaz, respectively, to order an expert analysis of the ballistic material found in a clandestine cemetery during the exhumation of May 1993. 250 The assistant prosecutor of the District Prosecutor's Office sent the collected evidence to the Technical Scientific Sub-Directorate of the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the corresponding expert analysis only on June 21, 2000, 251 that is, seven years after these items were found and two and a half years after the initial request was made by the aforementioned relatives. In addition, there is no record of any follow-up in relation to the export report prepared by the criminal investigations technician of the Ballistics Section of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and sent to the District Prosecutor’s Office of Salamá on July 5, 2000. 252 226. Sixth, in June 1999, January and May 2000, and December 2005, these individuals asked the District Prosecutor’s Office of Baja Verapaz to ask the Ministry of National Defense for a report with the names of the Minister of National Defense, the Chief of the General Staff and other military authorities assigned to the Baja Verapaz region in 1982; 253 however, there is no record of any response to these four requests filed over the course of six years. 227. Seventh, the Court notes that on September 9, 2002, the assistant prosecutor of the Special Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested from the Civil Registry of the Municipality of Rabinal, certifications of the death certificates of 34 persons “whose bones were found in Chichupac during the exhumations carried out from June 6 to July 7, 1993 by […the FAFG].” 254 In this regard, the Court notes that: i) the exhumation began on May 6, 1993, and not on June 6, as indicated in the request; 255 ii) the list of persons submitted by the assistant prosecutor to the Civil Registry contains the names of 34 persons, even though the skeletons of only 31 persons were recovered in the aforementioned exhumation, and only seven were identified (supra paras. 91 and 105), and iii) some of the names included in the list submitted by the assistant prosecutor to the Civil Registry do not appear in the statements gathered in these 14, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8775 and 8776). 249 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 145, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2015. Series C No. 308, para. 195. 250 Cf. Briefs submitted on December 5, 1997, January 21 and May 12, 2000 by Miguel Sic, Fabiana Chen and Teresa Cacaj to become joint plaintiffs (evidence file, folios 589 to 590, 595 to 596 and 636 to 645). 251 Cf. Official letter of the assistant prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office of Salamá of June 21, 2000 (evidence file, folios 1075 to 1079). In an order of May 15, 2000, the Criminal Judge of First Instance ordered the evidence to be forwarded to the Public Prosecution Service to conduct the corresponding expert assessments (evidence file, folio 582). This information was submitted in official letter No.C-255-93 of.40 (evidence file, folios 1076 to 1078). 252 Cf. Expert opinion No.BAL-00-0404-mxx of the Criminal Investigations Technician of the Technical Scientific Department of the Public Prosecution Service on July 5, 2000 (evidence file, folios 578 to 580). 253 Cf. Briefs of Miguel Sic Osorio, Fabiana Chen Galiego and Teresa Cacaj Cahuec (evidence file, folios 597 to 605 and 8797 to 8799). 254 Cf. Official letter from the assistant prosecutor of the Special Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service of September 9, 2002 (evidence file, folio 506). 255 Cf. Report of Anthropological Forensic Investigation (evidence file, folios 508 to 574).