of the order to archive the case. As of July 16, 2011 she had still not obtained a certified copy.43 96. Following the decision to archive the case, on June 2, 2008 the representative of the Ombudsman’s Delegate in the State of Zulia issued a letter addressed to the 20 th Prosecutor’s Office, which was received on June 10, indicating that “the 4th Prosecutor’s Office has received a complaint made on [18 May 2007], in which a citizen named the Mayor of Machiques Alfonso Márquez as the mastermind behind the killing of [Mr.] Castillo”. On July 27, 2010 and May 19, 2011, the 20th Prosecutor’s Office issued communications requesting the appearance, on August 16, 2010 and May 26, 2011, respectively, of the accuser “in order to take a statement regarding Case 24-F20-817-2003, concerning the death of [Mr.] Joe Luis Castillo”44. VI MERITS 97. From the facts presented in the preceding chapter, the Court notes that the dispute between the parties centers around the possibility of attributing responsibility to the State for the loss of life of Joe Luis Castillo resulting from the injuries caused by gunshot wounds inflicted by two individuals, which caused his death, as well as the violation of the right to personal integrity as a result of the injuries suffered by Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and the child Luis César Castillo Moreno. Therefore, in this chapter, the Court will examine the State’s responsibility for the alleged violation of the right to life,45 personal integrity46 and rights of the child47, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee those rights48, with respect to Joe Luis Castillo, Yelitze Moreno and Luis César Castillo Moreno, as appropriate, in relation to the attack against them. 98. Moreover, the Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives indicated that the rights to life and personal integrity imply, as a corollary to the obligation to guarantee those rights, the duty to carry out a diligent investigation into any alleged 43 As stated by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions, and not disputed by the State. 44 These procedures were not mentioned by the Commission or by the parties in the Merits Report. Nevertheless, the Court considers them proven given that these are complementary to the factual framework described in the Merits Report in relation to the investigation of the facts, and that they appear in the evidence provided by the State. 45 Article 4 of the American Convention, states: “1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 46 Article 5 of the American Convention, states: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 47 Article 19 of the American Convention states: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” 48 Article 1 of the American Convention states: 1. “1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 23