36 133. The Commission alleged that the State had a duty of increased diligence to disprove the indicia regarding participation of its agents, but in the domestic criminal proceedings the dismissal was ordered based on the statements of the state agents involved, while “what was narrated by Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí” was discarded, under the main argument that they did not corroborate their statements”, improperly transferring the burden of proof to them. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the lack of evidence to corroborate the complaints is a consequence of the lack of due diligence measures. In view of this, the Commission stated that the investigation by the Public Prosecutor's Office was merely a formality without the desire to clarify the facts and impose responsibilities. On the other hand, it considered that “the judges who heard the writs of habeas corpus did not act with due diligence, [...] since they only required the Police to inform them about the existence of arrest warrants and possible places of detention where [the alleged victims] could be.” Moreover, it indicated that an habeas corpus cannot be rejected due to the mere existence of an arrest warrant. With regard to the independence and impartiality of the investigation, the Commission observed that the State did not take the necessary measures to ensure that the prosecutors handling the case were independent from the accused, taking into account the decisive role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in accusing or not. In relation to the duty to remove obstacles, the Commission affirmed that the State breached said duty for not having taken the appropriate measures to ensure the possibility of some type of judicial control over the definitive actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This is evidenced by the impossibility of formulating an accusation in the face of a ratified request for dismissal. Likewise, the Commission considered that this duty was breached by not investigating the reasons for the retraction of key witnesses in this case. 134. The representatives highlighted that they requested innumerable procedures and that the Prosecutor's Office refused to carry them out. In this regard, they indicated that the case involves a fraudulent res judicata, where “both the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the competent tribunals set up a process with a determined result.” They also indicated that the judicial organs did not remove the obstacles faced by the habeas corpus petitions presented and that several verbal complaints by the next of kin were not registered in writing by the relevant authorities. 135. The State alleged that it carried out 245 evidentiary activities, of which 160 were carried out at the initiative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It indicated that these investigative acts were carried out to verify the facts and identify the alleged perpetrators, as well as timely and leading steps to discover the whereabouts of the petitioners and the existence of the facts denounced. With respect to certain measures requested, they were not carried out because they were “repetitive or irrelevant.” Therefore, “the request for definitive dismissal […] was the conclusion of exhaustive prosecutorial work that originated from the first moment in which [the alleged disappearance] became known.” Regarding independence and impartiality, the State highlighted that neither the alleged victims nor their representatives challenged any of the intervening prosecutors, nor any of the competent judges, nor did they exercise their power to request judicial assistance or issues about the investigation. Regarding the obligation to remove obstacles, the State considers that throughout the investigative stage the alleged victims participated actively as private complainants and exercised all the pertinent procedural remedies to challenge the definitive dismissal. Furthermore, the State added that when it comes to forced disappearance, the context in which the facts occur must be analyzed. The facts of the present case happened within the framework of the kidnapping of María Edith Bordón, which explains that “the authorities did not have reasonable grounds […] to suspect an enforced disappearance. It is a frequent fact that a person whose arrest has been ordered tries to postpone his arrest for a while.” Regarding the habeas corpus, it indicated that “all the necessary acts were carried out […] to investigate or verify the illegal deprivation alleged in the places indicated by the plaintiffs” and that the detention of Juan Arrom could not be verified. B. Considerations of the Court