la República), the National Police, and the Human Rights Ombudsman,95 and that "the respective files" had been opened.96 88. In particular, according to the petitioners, a denunciation had been filed concerning what had happened on August 29, 1994, when Mr. Pacheco, the security guard at Mrs. Villaseñor's residence had been beaten and interrogated.97 The State, for its part, specified that the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic, via the Second Magistrate's Criminal Court of the department of Guatemala is conducting the investigations into the events of August 29, 1994.98 89. In respect of the occurrences of December 1995. the petitioners pointed out that complaints were filed with the Human Rights Ombudsman and the Police.99. They stated that police officers had told Mrs. Villaseñor that she had "already got them into a lot trouble."100 The State did not contest the fact that these complaints had been filed. 90. As regards the e-mails received ini1997, the petitioners stated that Mrs. Villaseñor had complained about them. to the Public Prosecutors' Office.101 The State did not contest the fact that this complaint had been filed. 91. Mrs. Villaseñor stated that on July 19, 2007, she had been visited by an assistant prosecutor regarding the complaint filed in respect of the events of July 2005. The State did not contest the fact that this complaint had been filed. Mrs. Villaseñor pointed out that no inquiries had been made regarding them and she complained about the State's failure to act.102 92. Regarding the occurrences of November 2007, Mrs. Villaseñor said she had filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office.103 She said that in January 2008 she had requested information from the Judiciary concerning the status of the investigation, but had not received a reply from the judicial authorities.104 93. As for the events in February 2008, Mrs. Villaseñor declared that she had lodged a complaint.105 The State did not contest the fact that this complaint had been filed. 94. Taking into account, the petitioners' repeated statements about her complaints and the fact that the State does not contest them, the Commission considers it established that Mrs. Villaseñor did file criminal complaints regarding the threats and harassment described. Furthermore, based on the information available, the Commission considers it established that Mrs. Villaseñor notified the State of a series of acts that she regarded as threats and intimidation against her through other means as well, including complaints to the Human Rights Ombudsman and her petition and request to the inter-American system for precautionary measures. Bearing in mind the information at its disposal, the Commission concludes that, apart from the resolutions issued by the Human Rights Ombudsman, no investigation has made any progress 95 State’s communication of September 27, 1994. 96 State’s communication of September 27, 1994. 97 Petitioners’ communication of September 20, 1994. 98 State’s communication of Tuesday, September 27, 1994. 99 Petitioners’ communication of January 5, 1996. 100 Petitioners’ communication of January 5, 1996. 101 Precautionary measures file. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of Sunday, August 11, 2013. 102 Petitioners’ communication of May 7, 2014. 103 Precautionary measures file. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of August 11, 2013. 104 Petitioners’ communication of May 7, 2014. 105 Petitioners’ communication of May 7, 2014. 15