154. In addition, the inspection of the company from which the check came was carried out almost one year after the court was made aware of the document’s existence. The IACHR also observes that despite statements indicating that the original check was in a safe at the DGIC, the authorities conducted no investigation of the matter. Hence, the Commission concludes that the State did not adequately or diligently analyze the possible ties between the two congressmen and the murder of Carlos Escaleras. 155. In addition, Col. Aldo Augusto Aldana was not included in the criminal investigation. The Commission notes that in spite of the indications identified above, no action was taken to establish his criminal responsibility. 156. For the reasons set out in this section, the Commission believes that during the development of the investigation, the State failed to pursue evidence and to seriously and exhaustively explore basic lines of investigation that would have effectively addressed the indications, apparent from the earliest stages, that at least three state officials were involved in the matter. b. Lack of diligence and obstacles in the investigations 157. In the case at hand, the IACHR notes that in addition to the three state authorities, at least five additional individuals were brought to trial as suspects in the death of Carlos Escaleras Mejía: Miguel Facussé, Oscar Sosa, Irene Castro, Oscar Escobar, and José Santos Manueles. The IACHR notes that the judicial case file contains: (i) at least five statements claiming that Miguel Facussé ordered the death of Carlos Escaleras through Irene Castro and Oscar Sosa because the alleged victim’s environmental activism prevented the establishment of a palm-oil processing plant in the vicinity of the Tocoa River; 248 (ii) the existence of a notebook seized at Oscar Sosa’s home containing references to the planning of Carlos Escaleras’s death and giving the name of Oscar Escobar; and (iii) the statement of an associate of José Santos Manueles who confessed to him his involvement in the murder of Carlos Escaleras. 158. In spite of this evidence, the Commission holds that the State failed to pursue the minimum formalities necessary to conduct an appropriate investigation of these individuals’ alleged responsibility. 159. The Commission has identified fundamental omissions that contributed to the failure to identify the responsibility for planning the murder; nevertheless, as noted above, there are indications of those responsibilities that, pursuant to the State’s obligation to conduct an investigation in accordance with inter-American standards, should have led to lines of investigation and the exhaustion thereof through all available means prior to being discarded. For example, the Commission notes that both Miguel Facussé and Irene Castro were dismissed from the proceedings on October 14, 2003, mere hours after their first statements were taken and without assessing the testimony of different witnesses incriminating them in the death of Carlos Escaleras. Neither is there any record in the case file of efforts to follow up on the notebook seized from Oscar Sosa’s home that contained information on Mr. Escaleras’s death. 160. In addition, the IACHR notes that during the criminal proceedings, around a dozen prosecutors were assigned to the case, which hindered the continuity of the investigations. The Commission also notes that the ad hoc prosecutor appointed to take sole charge of the case remained in that position for less than six months before being removed. The IACHR observes that the case file does not indicate the reasons why that prosecutor was removed, or the reasons why a new ad hoc prosecutor was appointed. 248 It should be noted that during the public hearing in the case of Luna López v. Honduras, the expert witness Juan Antonio Mejía Guerra said that deaths of environmental activists “have in common the fact that they took place in places and among organizations and individuals who h[ad] direct confrontations with companies that had major economic interests either in the forests, the water, the land or the mines.” See: I/A Court H. R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, para. 20. 31