68 the disappearance of their next of kin.234” In the case file there is a request for documents made by Mrs. Tita Radilla on December 12, 2002 to the General Archive of the Nation.235 On the other hand, the State mentioned that “[d]iligences were carried out at [I]slas Marías upon Mrs. Tita Radilla’s suggestion.”236 230. Likewise, the representatives also stated that “[t]he case file is full of documents that the next of kin themselves presented as evidence.” During the public hearing (supra para. 9), Tita Radilla stated that “[t]he majority of what is stated in the inquiries […] is data we provided, [our] statements,” and that, in fact, “[t]he Public Prosecutors’ Offices told [them that] if they had witnesses [they should] bring them.” Therefore, she stated that said task corresponded to the public prosecutors’ office, but that with the objective of helping “[t]he progress of the investigations, on many occasions […] they transported the witnesses so they could testify […].” 231. The State did not contest these aspects specifically. The Court considers that the facts stated by the representatives have been proven, since they can only be disproven through the case file of preliminary inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/2007, which the State should have forwarded but refused to do so (supra para. 92). 232. The Court verifies that even though the State has carried out several efforts with regard to the scanning and excavation diligences mentioned (supra para. 208), the investigation has not had in its totality the drive characteristic of the State. The Tribunal points out that said diligences were carried out based on that stated by Tita Radilla herself and other people, and that the State is not inquiring the alleged responsible parties directly. In fact, throughout the processing of the present case, the State of Mexico did not refer to any other possible diligences regarding the search for the whereabouts of Mr. Rosendo Radilla. 233. In order for a criminal investigation to constitute an effective recourse for guaranteeing the right to a fair trial of the alleged victims, as well as to guarantee the rights that have been affected in the present case, it shall be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality condemned beforehand to being unsuccessful, and it shall have a sense of being and be assumed by the States as their own juridical duty and not as a mere process of individual interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victim or his next of kin or of the private provision of evidentiary elements.237 234. The Tribunal takes into account that the State has not carried out many diligences in the investigation of those responsible for the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco. In that sense, the Court concludes that the investigation is not being carried out in a serious, effective, and exhaustive manner. (c) Legal classification applied in the presentation before the judge 235. The representatives stated that the only presentation of an alleged responsible party made by the Special Prosecutors’ Office before a judge was in August 2005 for the crime of 234 Cf. Respondent’s plea (dossier of merits, volume II, folio 698). 235 Cf. Request of documents made by Tita Radilla Martínez, General Archive of the Nation, on December 12, 2002 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix D(12), folio 1867). 236 Cf. Respondent’s plea (dossier of merits, volume II, folio 713). Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 177; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 101, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 123. 237