35 credible” and “have numerous elements of corroboration.”206 Therefore, it indicated that “the defendant's lack of participation has been sufficiently proven.”207 130. Regarding the prosecutor, Hugo Adalberto Velázquez Moreno, the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that Juan Arrom stated that in his conversation with Minister Fanego he told him that he should collaborate, which Mr. Arrom understood to mean that he had to sign a document before prosecutor Velázquez Moreno. In this regard, the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that the occurrence of said telephone call has not been proven and that Mr. Arrom's statements are “suppositions that Velázquez was aware of the alleged detention suffered by him and Martí.”208 On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor made reference to what was stated by the Deputy Ombudsman, Héctor Raúl Marín Peralta, and pointed out that while he declared that it was prosecutor Velázquez Moreno who informed him that the alleged victims were in custody of paramilitaries, prosecutor Velázquez Moreno affirmed that it was Mr. Marín who informed him, which was reflected in press releases. Therefore, “there is certainty that Velázquez did not participate in the events.”209 B.3 Conclusion 131. This Court notes that the vast majority of the evidence presented to prove state participation refers to statements by the alleged victims and hearsay testimonies, which should coincide with other elements of evidence, in order to be conclusive regarding the international responsibility of the State (supra paras 107and 115). The investigations carried out internally took into account said statements, as well as the evidence that would demonstrate the lack of participation of the individuals identified by the alleged victims and concluded that there were not enough elements to present an accusation against these individuals. There are no elements in the case file before the Court additional to those examined by the national authorities that demonstrate state participation. 132. Due to the foregoing considerations, the Court notes that the evidence presented before this Court is insufficient to infer the conclusion that Messrs. Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez were deprived of their liberty by state agents or with their acquiescence. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. VII-2 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF JUDICIAL GUARANTEES210 AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION,211 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS A. 206 207 208 209 7467). Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7458). Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7459). Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7466). Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7466 and Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 211 Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes that: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 210