that a series of omissions, delays and procedural inactivity violated the State obligation of due diligence, as well as the reasonable time for implementing those investigations and proceedings. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the case of Igmar Landaeta, the disputed facts have not been clarified and although, initially, one of the two accused was convicted, his case was “dismissed” in November 2003. In the case of Eduardo Landaeta, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings are currently at the stage of the oral trial, 17 years after the incident occurred. The Court also takes notes that the lines of investigation into the two deaths were unconnected, despite the evidence of the relationship between the deaths and that only 45 days separated them. 220. Based on the above, the Court must decide whether the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty. To this end, the Court will make its analysis by assessing: (a) the absence of joint investigations into the deaths of the Landaeta Mejías brothers; (b) due diligence and reasonable time in the case of Igmar Landaeta; (c) due diligence, and the absence of investigations into the detention and presumed violation of humane treatment and reasonable time in the case of Eduardo Landaeta. B.1 Absence of joint investigations into the deaths of the Landaeta Mejías brothers 221. The Court observes that the investigations into the deaths of Igmar and Eduardo Landaeta were conducted separately and no connection was ever made between them. In the chapter on proven facts, the Court noted that Igmar Landaeta died in November 1996 and his brother, Eduardo Landaeta, died 45 days later in December that year. The Court observes that, on different occasions during the two criminal proceedings, María Magdalena Mejías and Ignacio Landaeta, the parents of the Landaeta Mejías brothers, stated that their sons had previously received threats from police agents, even just before the death of Eduardo Landaeta. Also, in their statements, they mentioned the names of three agents (GACF, AAC 257 and CJZM) (supra paras. 56 and 57) as the presumed harassers, and the first two were implicated in and prosecuted for the death of Igmar Landaeta. 222. Furthermore, these statements reveal that the CTPJ authorities were made aware of the presumed harassment and threats in the first statement made by María Magdalena Mejías on November 20, 1996, as this Court has already established (supra para. 57). The assertions were confirmed in subsequent statements in April 1997 and February 2004. Also, the evidence in the Court’s case file includes testimony indicating that, following the shot that ended Igmar Landaeta’s life, a young woman who was in the white vehicle told the individuals that “they had made a mistake”; that this was not the person they were looking for (supra para. 62). Thus, prior to Eduardo Landaeta’s death, the State already had evidence of the possible connection between the two deaths, and did not initiate any inquiries to confirm this. In addition, the Court has established that while Eduardo Landaeta was detained, his parents informed the authorities not only about the threats against him, but also of the danger to his life (supra paras. 70 and 187). Despite this, the authorities failed to take the necessary measures to prevent his death; because, even though they had this information, there is no record in the case file that the State considered lines of investigation that took the family’s statements into account. 223. Owing to the death of Eduardo Landaeta, the Justice and Peace Human Rights Committee of the State Aragua filed a request to open a preliminary inquiry into unlawful conduct by a State agent (averiguación de nudo de hecho) before the Ninth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on August 27, 1997. In this request, the Committee 257 The Court has been unable to identify AAC but, from the evidence provided, it infers that this refers to AJCG (supra footnote 62). 58