6. Regarding the length of the process, the petitioner alleges it was unreasonable. It states that the case took almost 11 years and ended with the dismissal of the charges. It alleges that the judges in charge of the investigation change several times, in some cases recusing themselves without justification. It indicates that the investigative steps taken were not carried out quickly or effectively, failing to meet the deadlines established in the Criminal Procedural Code. It also underscores that despite presenting multiple requests to judicial authorities, they did not move the process along. 7. Additionally, the petitioner indicates that the investigation was not conducted pursuant to due diligence standards. It alleges that the National Civil Police did not protect the crime scene and did not collect forensic evidence to determine if the explosion was the result of a device inside the vehicle or if the device had been thrown from outside. It indicates that the criminal investigation bodies did not follow the minimum methodologies for the investigation with regard to protecting, inspecting, and establishing the location of the facts, collecting evidence, and sending it to a laboratory. 8. The petitioner also alleges that the lack of a diligent investigation led to a situation of impunity in that it was not able to determine who was responsible for the facts leading to the alleged victims’ permanent and irreversible injuries. The process thus concluded with an acquittal, confirmed by the highest court, which found that there was not sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty. B. State 9. The State holds that it is not internationally responsible in this case. It states that the investigation into the incidents that took place in November 1993 was carried out in adherence to the law and to the international standards of the inter-American system. 10. With regard to the law applicable to the facts of the case, it indicates that according to information from the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the criminal process was conducted pursuant to legislation that entered into force in 1973. It indicates that "at that time, criminal procedures law allowed for limited participation and rights of victims, and has now been replaced by the current criminal procedures law. It adds that under the applicable law, i) the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic did not conduct the investigation of the crime, but rather the court did, moving and directing the process officiously; and ii) Mr. Aguirre Magaña was not recognized as a witness. 11. El Salvador indicates that three inspections were carried out after the facts took place by i) police officers; ii) the justice of the peace of Ataco; and iii) the First Justice of the Peace of Ahuachapán. Regarding the participation of multiple judicial authorities in the process, the State said it was necessary to settle matters of jurisdiction "for a variety of recusals requested by the judges in the case, and it took time to issue the corresponding orders. It also argues that "during the course of the process, motions were filed by the parties, the majority by the defense, which also requested procedures to explore the hypothesis of other perpetrators and causes of the incident, to the point of causing procedural delays.” 12. Regarding the investigative procedures, El Salvador indicates that the Office of the Public Prosecutor sent interview requests to the victim, witnesses, and inspectors. The State highlighted that the vehicle in which the facts took place caught fire as a result of the explosion inside it. It said this made it impossible to collect evidence that might help establish what happened, meaning that the expert reports that relied on photographs differed in their conclusions. This is why the expert reports had two hypotheses but neither could be confirmed: i) that the explosive device exploded inside the vehicle and was being transported by the Justice of the Peace of Villa Apaneca; and ii) that the explosive device was thrown from outside and exploded inside the vehicle. 13. It also indicates that the only direct witnesses of the fact were the people who were inside the vehicle. It notes that Mr. Francisco Reynaldo Castillo, the driver and owner of the vehicle, said it was an attempted assassination. It says this was confirmed by the passenger, José Antonio Ruiz Vásquez. The State also indicates that this was originally confirmed by Mr. Aguirre Magaña, who "one year later described a different version of the facts." 2