134. The Commission takes note of a series of shortcomings in the implementation of the protective measures that may have contributed to the continuity of the risk that Mrs. Villaseñor faced in the performance of her functions. Thus, the Commission takes note of the fact that there were periods in which only one security guard was on duty, because the other went on vacation leave and was not replaced. The Commission underscores the various resolutions issued by the Human Rights Ombudsman in reference to the protective measures implemented by the State. In his resolution of September 1994, the Ombudsman concluded that the State violated Mrs. Villaseñor's right to integrity by "failing to do its duty." In his resolution of March 2002, he pointed to "the existence of behavior (...) detrimental to the interests (...) of María Eugenia Villaseñor." Subsequently, in his resolution of March 2009, the Ombudsman concluded that the State had not guaranteed Mrs. María Eugenia Villaseñor's security. In addition, the IACHR takes note of other irregularities, such as the obligation imposed on Mrs. María Eugenia Villaseñor to defray the cost of feeding the security guards. 135. The shortcomings identified in the protective measures are, precisely, related to the failure to conduct a diligent and timely investigation of Mrs. María Eugenia Villaseñor's complaints, as detailed in this report. The Commission considers that if the State had conducted an effective investigation from the time of Mrs. María Eugenia Villaseñor's first complaints it would have been able to design measures to protect her personal integrity based on the specific sources of risk and pressure. Moreover, it would have been possible to prevent the impact on that integrity caused by the persistence of this situation for almost two decades. Accordingly, the instant case exemplifies the link that exists between the lack of effective investigation, shortcomings in the protective measures, and the impairment of the personal integrity of a judge, due to the many years of denunciations of different forms of pressure, threats, and harassment derived from her judicial functions. That situation constitutes a denial of justice and a permanent violation of the mental and moral integrity of Mrs. María Eugenia Villaseñor and her family, derived from the latent risk and anguish to which they have been subjected for a prolonged period of time. 136. Finally, the Commission would like to note, as well, that both the lack of adequate protection based on a serious diagnostic assessment of the sources of risk and pressure and the lack of diligent and effective investigation, affected Mrs. María Eugenia Villaseñor's work as a judge in proceedings with considerable national and international repercussions. Just as the Human Rights Ombudsman concluded in his resolution of March 2009, the situation of risk that Mrs. Villaseñor faced at the time "did not allow her to exercise the judicial authority she possesses to administer justice within her sphere of competence." In that sense, the instant case also constitutes an example of how the lack of an effective response with regard to both protection and the investigation of outside pressures on a judge may pose a risk to the independent and impartial exercise of her important function of administering justice. 137. In light of all the above considerations, the IACHR concludes that the State of Guatemala violated the rights judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of María Eugenia Villaseñor. Likewise, the IACHR concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of María Eugenia Villaseñor, her daughter Beatriz Eugenia Villaseñor Velarde, her brother Francis Villaseñor Velarde and her sister Rosa Antonieta Villaseñor Velarde. VII. CONCLUSIONS 138. Based on the considerations of fact and law set out above, the Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the instant case, that it satisfies admissibility requirements, and that the State of Guatemala is responsible for violation of the rights to humane treatment (personal integrity), judicial guarantees and judicial protection recognized at Articles 5.1, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention taken in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1 (1) of that international instrument. 24