and the analysis of the facts of the case. Also, during the proceedings, serious obstructions occurred and threats against witnesses, in some cases perpetrated by federal police agents, as well as the death of a person whose testimony had been requested. In view of all this, 19 years later, the facts of the case have not been elucidated and remain in impunity. 133. Added to the above, the Court has considered that, in cases of violent death, such as this once, the implementation of a serious, impartial and effective investigation ex officio, is an essential element and a contributing factor to the protection of the right to life. 245 In this case, it is undeniable that, more than 19 years after the murder of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, the facts of the case remain to be clarified and the corresponding responsibilities have not been established, so that, as it has on other occasions, 246 the Court observes that reaching any other conclusions than the attribution of responsibility to the State for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Gutiérrez, would signify allowing the State to shield itself behind the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation in order to exempt itself from responsibility. But, the Court also finds that it is evident that the obstacles faced by the different judicial proceedings in this case cannot allow them to be characterized as an effective investigation, and this was acknowledged by the parties when they indicated in the Agreement on reparations that “the judicial investigation into the facts that resulted in the murder of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez was not conducted in accordance with the required international standards.” 134. As acknowledged by Argentina, the Court concludes that the investigation of the facts in this case did not comply with the criteria of due diligence, effective judicial protection, and reasonable time, in violation of the right of access to justice established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. VIII-3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 135. The Commission indicated that the statements of the next of kin of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez “reveal the suffering and anguish caused” by the violations committed in this case, which generated “profound moral harm, the aftereffects of which persist […] today.” It stressed that “the members of the immediate family of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez have experienced moral suffering, and feelings of insecurity, frustration and impotence as a result of his execution.” In addition, according to the Commission, it was the family members who “were the main drivers of the investigation,” and the lack of diligence in the investigation contributed to “prolonging their suffering.” Consequently, it concluded “that the rights protected by Article 5 of the American Convention were violated with regard to the family members of the victim, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez: his widow, Nilda del Valle Maldonado; his three children Jorge Gabriel Gutiérrez, [Omar] David Gutiérrez and Marilin Verónica Gutiérrez, and his brother Francisco Gutiérrez.” 136. The representatives indicated that the death of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez “had a significant impact on the functioning [of his family], who, from one day to the next, lost an important reference point.” They emphasized that his “father and mother and his brother 245 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 75. 246 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 97, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 164. 50