[…] of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their corresponding responsibilities.”289 225. The Commission observes that from the time the parents learned of their son’s death, they pursued legal action, which has not ceased. This, in a context in which, from the outset, they have confronted a lack of information from the authorities responsible for guaranteeing his protection about what happened during the training exercise in which their son lost his life. Especially important is the fact that on February 15, 1998, the military authorities themselves informed Mr. Edgar Ortiz and Mrs. Zaida Hernández about a rather specific version of what had happened, which, moreover, served as the grounds for the determinations issued by the Human Rights Committee of the Tachira State Legislative Assembly in its 1999 report. However, as established, this is not the version that was subsequently used as grounds for the charging document issued by the Office of the Military Prosecutor and the Ministry of Public Prosecution in their respective proceedings, which also take into account the statements of these same military personnel. The Commission therefore reiterates that the State did not launch relevant investigations to establish the respective responsibilities, a circumstance that a legislative organ of the State itself described as a way of keeping the truth of what happened from coming out. 226. The parents must have endured acute anxiety and pain during the hours they had to wait before the body of their son was turned over to them after they arrived at the morgue of the San Cristóbal Central Hospital, because they were not told why they could not take him home right away after they had refused to receive the body “in a closed urn,” they had to witness his body “exposed” all night, and Mr. Edgar Ortiz had had to set out in the early hours of the morning in search of the death certificate, which neither the responsible hospital personnel nor the members of the military that were present had promptly issued. This, added to the fact that the parents of Johan Alexis Ortiz maintain that his body was “manhandled” and he was “tortured” before he died – circumstances that, as established in this report, were neither investigated nor clarified by the Venezuelan State. 227. In addition, the family’s pain has been increasing over the years, since, after their tireless quest for justice, the judicial proceedings have suffered undue delays that have fostered impunity for the acts. In particular, Mr. Ortiz’s parents have insisted to diverse domestic authorities through numerous communications, reports, and statements about the death of their son that they themselves prepared, that a diligent and effective investigation had not been conducted to shed light on these events, and how this, in turn, had increased their suffering at his loss, causing them intense frustration, sadness, and a sense of impotence. According to the case file, the two have worked constantly to move the investigation forward, repeatedly requesting that it be conducted with due speed and contributing elements relevant to the investigations, which – as established earlier – have not been duly considered by the Venezuelan authorities. Moreover, the Commission’s examination shows that the parents were not given effective access to the court case files, which, especially in the phase of the investigation conducted by the military authorities, led to a great deal of uncertainty and frustration about whether the proceedings were being handled in a serious and impartial manner. 228. The case file before the Commission also contains information on how the death of Johan Alexis Ortiz affected the families of Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández, how it affected the alleged victim’s younger brothers and sisters, who called Saul Arellano Moral (husband of Zaida Hernández) and Maritza González Cordero (wife of Edgar Ortiz) their “adoptive mother” and “adoptive father;” and on the tremendous economic burden that seeking legal assistance for their representation in the judicial proceedings and their quest for justice imposed on them. In their own words, access to justice for them has been “a privilege,” and not “a right,” and more than sixteen years after the events in question, the circumstances under which their loved one lost his life have not been definitively clarified. 289 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, Par. 102 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, Par. 195, I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, Par. 181; I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, Par. 146, and I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, Par. 102.