gave up said counsel in the first semester of 2002, stating that they were being advised by a private attorney. The State also reports that on October 14, 2003, representation in the case was assumed by the attorney Raúl Meza Rodríguez, who took no action in the trial until November 22, 2004, the day on which he delegated representation in another lawyer. In this respect, the State maintains that the petitioners did not adequately pursue progress in the proceedings initiated by their complaint. 36. The State also notes that diligence in the actions of the court investigating the case is evident. In particular, once a dispute over jurisdiction was resolved, on February 13, 2002 the complaint was received, admitted for processing, and an order to investigate was issued. In addition, the State reports that witness testimony was taken and arrest warrants were issued for two witnesses who did not appear for questioning. Moreover, the State explains, the proceedings have suffered from a certain delay since the summons and notification of the accused had to be carried out by the First Court of Puente Alto through a request to another court, since the accused had their domicile outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 37. In its response to the instant petition, the State said it was carrying out a process of reform of the criminal justice system in Chile in order to “radically eliminate the vices of the old criminal justice system, avoiding, inter alia, situations such as those faced by the petitioner.” The State clarifies that it does not accept responsibility for the facts imputed to it, but considers that the reform will avoid the repetition of violations of the right to obtain swift and fair justice for all citizens. 38. On October 16, 2008 the State provided the Commission with Court Record No. 75.927-M of the First Court of Puente Alto regarding the investigation of the death of Mr. Vinicio Poblete Vilches. The State noted that the case was dismissed only twice, but that it is still pending resolution under the domestic judicial system. 39. Regarding this point, the State reports that on December 11, 2006, since there was insufficient evidence of the existence of the crime object of the complaint, the case was dismissed without prejudice until such time as new facts and better data resulted from investigation. On April 17, 2007, following a request filed by the Human Rights Office of the Legal Aid Corporation, the case was reopened. One year later, on June 30, 2008, the case was again dismissed without prejudice, until such time that new and better facts were gathered. 10