investigations and in the proceedings, as well as some unjustified procedural delays, so that the proceedings lasted seven years; (b) the absence of measures to resolve evident contradictions in the assessment of the evidence at the different judicial stages, especially in the determination of the legality of the use of force; (c) the failure to investigate the indications that an extrajudicial execution had been committed; (d) the absence of disciplinary investigations in relation to the actions of the police agents who took part in the incident, and (e) the failure to provide sufficient reasoning with regard to the legality of the use of force in the decision of November 10, 2003. 241 207. Regarding Eduardo Landaeta, the Commission argued that a series of irregularities, omissions and delays had occurred while the investigation procedures were being conducted, as well as extended periods of procedural inactivity. The Commission underscored the main omissions committed by the State, namely: (a) the lack of knowledge about the events that were being investigated of the authorities in charge of the investigation; (c) the extended periods of inactivity, which at one point lasted three years; (c) the excessive delay in requesting evidence of vital importance, such as the expansion of the autopsy, the ballistics trajectory, and the exhumation of the corpse; (d) the impossibility of obtaining evidence owing to the passage of time; (e) the loss of evidence, such as the photographs taken during the inspection of the corpse prior to the viewing; (f) the requests by the officials in charge of the investigation for information that was never sent and procedures that were never carried out, and (g) the absence of logical lines of investigation, taking into account the statements of the members of Eduardo Landaeta’s family. The Commission also indicated that the absolute failure of the domestic authorities to investigate his unlawful and arbitrary detention, as well as the possible violations of his personal integrity, meant that the State did not provide an effective judicial remedy to his family. As regards the reasonable time, the Commission concluded that the State had not presented arguments to justify the delay of more than 17 years in the investigations in the case of Eduardo Landaeta, even though it was not particularly complex, and the failure to clarify the events and to punish those responsible was due to the omissive conduct of the authorities, while it was Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz who was endeavoring to advance the investigations. 208. The representatives of the presumed victims emphasized that, in relation to the investigations into the two deaths, the general context of violence and extrajudicial executions, the threats and harassment that had preceded the death of the Landaeta brothers, and the interrelationship between the two deaths were not take into account, and this prevented the elucidation of the events, thus exacerbating the existing impunity. Regarding the death threats and the harassment suffered in this case, the representatives indicated that, when the parents of the Landaeta brothers tried to denounce these facts, police officials paid no attention to their reports, so that they “were unable to put on record” these threats against their sons “in an investigation case file until the two young men had been killed.” This resulted in a police “cover-up” that shrouded and fragmented the investigations. Moreover, if the parents had been able to place the said threats on record, the deaths of the two brothers could have been prevented. 209. With regard to Igmar Landaeta, the representatives agreed with the observations of the Commission and indicated that the case file revealed that the CTPJ committed numerous irregularities in the investigation, such as the failure to carry out a reconstruction of the incident, ballistics comparisons, the identification of the agents who took part in the incident by eyewitnesses, and the absence of evidence from the gunpowder residue on the police agents. Furthermore, in their final written arguments, 241 The Commission indicated that this judgment did not deal with essential issues that the first and second instance judicial authorities had considered grounds for convicting one of the accused, because it did not take into account the contradictions between the testimony of the accused, and the evidence on which the lack of necessity of the second shot was based, so that the reasoning concerning the use of force was inadequate. 54