D. Lack of due diligence in the criminal investigation 253. The Commission indicated that, on reading the entire case file of the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera, it had identified a number of omissions and irregularities that had obstructed the elucidation of what happened, the identification of those responsible and the possibilities of returning the remains to the victims’ next of kin after a thorough study to identify them. These omissions and irregularities included: the Second Court did not summon any State authority to testify that could provide information about the military operation and that could refer to the events described by the witnesses; faced with the lack of response from the President of the Republic to the communications sent to obtain official information on the operations and perpetrators, the Second Court did not use any coercive measures to ensure the prompt presentation of information to advance the investigations; following the Ministry of Defense’s response concerning the inexistence of any military operation, the Second Court had not make any effort to reiterate the demand for information, to use other mechanisms such as judicial inspections of military facilities, or to summon Government authorities who were in office at the time of the facts to testify; there is no evidence of any measures taken by the Second Court to obtain information on the names of the soldiers who had given statements to the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado and, if appropriate, summon them to testify so that they could throw light on the facts; there is no evidence that steps were taken to follow up on the exhumation procedures or to comply with the recommendations of the Truth Commission and the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team; rather, the Second Court decided to terminate the exhumation procedures once the amnesty law was approved; the Second Court did not use the necessary measures to protect the osseous remains found for their subsequent identification and return to the next of kin and, regarding the decision to suspend the investigations of September 27, 1993, the Second Court transferred to the witnesses or victims who had come forward to testify the burden of proof of both the crime and the participation of the perpetrators of the massacre, without assuming the investigation as its own legal obligation and, consequently, without evaluating all available information and exhausting all means at its disposal to investigate the facts properly and in a diligent manner. The Commission considered that these elements were sufficient to conclude that the supposed lack of urgency and diligence in the investigations conducted by the Second Court, and its ineffectiveness to clarify the facts and to identify those responsible, constituted a violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as of the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém Do Pará, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims. The Commission also concluded that the failure to continue the investigations has extended to date and constituted a violation of the said articles. 254. The representatives argued that the State of El Salvador was responsible for incurring in an unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places. In this regard, they indicated that, less than three years had elapsed when, on September 1, 1993, the trial judge applied the Amnesty Law to the case. Thereafter, seven years passed without any procedural activity and, subsequently, the only steps taken to date were taken by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado, most of which were aimed at the recovery of the remains, because the authorities had not responded to the requests to continue the investigation into what occurred and for the eventual punishment of those responsible. Thus, 21 years have elapsed since the investigation was opened and, to date, no one has been prosecuted and punished for the grave facts that are alleged. Consequently, the representatives considered that it was evident that the delay in the investigation of the facts resulted from the State’s absolute unwillingness. In this regard, the representatives affirmed that, since November 26, 2006, the victims’ representatives in the domestic proceedings had filed before the competent court a series of requests that had not been decided on the following aspects: to declare the inapplicability of the Amnesty Law, to continue the criminal proceedings, to request the President of the Republic for information held by the Salvadoran Armed Forces, to inspect the archives of this military institution, to order the preventive detention of the accused Armed 83