307. The Court also notes that, despite the statements of community members reporting the existence of threats, even death threats, against them, the State did not conduct additional procedures to clarify the facts. In this regard, the Court recalls that the State obligation to investigate must be complied with diligently to avoid impunity and the repetition of facts such as these. 325 Therefore, owing to the existence of threats presumably made up until the present, the Court reminds the State of its general obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention, 326 and the special obligation to ensure the rights of people who are at risk 327 (supra para. 280). 308. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State acted in violation of the principle of due diligence by failing to conduct the relevant procedures to clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities. In addition, the State violated the principle of a reasonable time given that, more than five years after the aforementioned complaints had been filed, the State has not concluded the investigations or the procedures initiated on behalf of the Punta Piedra community. B.2.2.2 Complaint concerning abuse of authority to the detriment of the members of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community 309. Regarding the complaint concerning abuse of authority 328 in relation to the construction of a highway without the respective prior consultation, the Court notes that, even though on November 3 of that same year, the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor issued an order requiring a series of procedures, including the inspection of the lands on which the highway was being constructed, none of them were carried out due to the “lack of travel expenses.” It was not until early June 2013, in other words more than two years after the complaint was filed, that the authorities carried out the inspection of the area and took photographs. This confirmed the existence of a highway cutting in front of a place called “Pulperia y Hospedaje La Única” within the Punta Piedra community’s territory. However, both the General Director of Highways and the Deputy Mayor of the municipality of Iriona informed the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor that the said institutions had not authorized the construction of a highway in the area (supra para. 156). […].” It is worth noting that this opinion was issued in an internal memorandum and does not constitute a formal decision regarding the complaint that was filed. Cf. Memorandum No. FEEPC-108-2014 of the Special Ethnic Affairs and Cultural Heritage Prosecutor addressed to the Coordinator of the International Affairs Unit, to report on the actual status of the domestic complaints, dated October 2, 2014 (evidence file, folios 2327 to 2329). 325 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 300 and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al., supra, para. 216. 326 Cf. Case of Velázquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, considering clause 3, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Right of January 28, 2015, considering clause 40. 327 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Order, supra, considering clause 3, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra, considering clause 40. 328 The complaint concerning the construction of a highway does not contain the specific article on abuse of authority. However, Chapter III “Abuse of authority and violation of the duties of public officials” of the Honduran Criminal Code regulates this type of criminal offense in articles 349 to 357. The article that would apply, in general, to the instant case is the following: “Article 349. The public official or employee who: (1) fails to comply with orders, judgments, judicial decisions, resolutions, agreements or decrees issued by the judicial or administrative authorities within their terms of reference and in keeping with legal formalities; (2) who issues or executes orders, judgments, judicial decisions, resolutions, agreements or decrees contrary to the Constitution or the law or refrains from complying with the provisions of any of the said legal instruments, or (3) omits, refuses or delay any action that he/she should execute pursuant to the duties of his/her position, shall be punished with 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment and special disqualification for twice the length of the prison sentence; […].” 87