36 conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention (Obligation to Respect Rights), to the detriment of José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto. * * * 3) Threats and harassment suffered by some members of the García Prieto Giralt family and the corresponding lack of an investigation into the events 122. The Inter-American Commission alleged that Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s next of kin were the object of recurring acts of intimidation, which endangered their lives and affected their safety and personal integrity. These acts included, among other things, anonymous threats and harassing phone calls, pursuit by vehicles, and surveillance by unknown individuals. The Commission alleged that these events have been a consequence of attempts by the García Prieto Giralt family to obtain justice. In addition, the Commission alleged that by failing to duly conduct an investigation, the State has permitted this situation to endure. As a result, the Commission alleged, the mental health of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s next of kin has been affected. 123. At the same time, the Commission argued that “the errors in the investigation into the threats has produced a constant fear in the [alleged] victims and has justified the grant of precautionary measures.” Moreover, according to the Commission, the investigation was characterized, among other things, by delay and the failure to call relevant witnesses. The Commission also stated that “none of the alleged investigations have produced the identification of any of those responsible” and stated that the investigations “were characterized by long periods of complete inactivity.” 124. Likewise, the common intervener indicated that the acts of intimidation directed at the García Prieto Giralt family have occurred with frequency and have endured to the present. According to the common intervener, the majority of these acts have been directed at the parents of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto, but María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo and other members of their extended family have also been affected. 125. With respect to the investigation into the “threats and acts of intimidation,” the common intervener indicated that although the criminal proceedings under file number 110/98 were opened in response to the request for precautionary measures by the Commission (supra note 9), the State never identified those responsible. According to the common intervener, the majority of the investigative steps taken were superficial. “For example, when vehicles involved in the acts of intimidation were investigated, the owners of these vehicles were sometimes identified, but these individuals were never called to provide a statement; in other cases, the vehicles were registered in the name of State entities […], however, an investigation into this situation was never developed.” Furthermore, the common intervener alleged that the steps taken to investigate the threats and acts of intimidation were negligent and focused on requesting information about the telephone numbers from which the harassing phone calls originated. These investigations were halted in 2002.