7 18. That pursuant to the documentation forwarded by the State, the Fifth Criminal Court of Pichincha decided on November 6, 2003 to provisionally discontinue the process since “there was no evidence […] to determine the authors, accomplices, and accessories of the crime.” The Judge justified the lack of evidence indicating that “during the preliminary criminal stage official letters addressed to the Head of Personnel of the National police and the Head of Antinarcotics of Pichincha were sent, […] requesting the list of the Officials that participated in the arrest and investigation of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero[, and] they did not comply with said requirement.” 19. That the State itself, through an official letter of the Attorney General of the State addressed on April 15, 2004 to the senior judges of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito, acknowledged that “essential procedural acts in the determination of those responsible for the violations committed have been omitted.” 20. That pursuant to the jurisprudence of this Court, “the State, in order to comply with its investigative duty, must guarantee that all public institutions offer the facilities necessary to the regular court” that hears the case for the violation of human rights declared by the Tribunal.9 21. That in the present case, the Court observes that the police authorities did not collaborate with judicial authorities in the request made by the latter to the first (supra Considering Clause number 18). That is, it is state agents who are making the investigations of the facts of this case difficult. That it is the State’s duty to avoid this from happening and to make sure that all public institutions collaborate with judicial authorities. 22. That with regarding to the State’s argument regarding the fact that the victim had not collaborated with the investigations, the Tribunal reiterates that the “investigation must be carried out by all legal means available and oriented to the determination of truth and the persecution, capture, prosecution, and imprisonment of all perpetrators, intellectual and physical, of the facts, especially when state agents are or may be involved. During the investigation and the judicial proceedings the victims or their next of kin must have ample opportunities to participate and be heard, both in the elucidation of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, and in the search of a fair compensation, according to domestic legislation and the American Convention. However, the investigation and the proceedings must have a purpose and be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not as a mere process of personal interest, that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or on the private contribution of evidentiary elements.”10 23. That in virtue of all of the above, the Court considers that the State has not taken the steps necessary to comply with that stated in operative paragraph six of the Judgment on merits (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). That, therefore, the State must reopen the investigations of the present case and make sure that all public institutions offer the information required by the judicial authorities. 9 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 156. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series c No. 163, para. 195, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 255. 10