homicide” of his father, and requested a joinder of the case with the prior one in the same court, and for the same facts. The cases were joined on February 9, 2006. The petitioners allege that the investigation was closed on December 11, 2006, its dismissal without prejudice decided by the court in spite of the fact that the procedures requested by them, and so ordered by the same court, had not been carried out, such as the reception of testimony of the medical personnel that treated his father in the hospital. They contend that some of the witnesses they offered came of their own accord to the court but their statement was not taken. Therefore, on January 29, 2007, they requested that the case be re-opened and several procedures be carried out. 24. On February 27, 2007, the case was reopened and on April 17 of that year the court ordered that it be returned to the stage of preliminary inquiry and that several procedures be carried out. On June 30, 2008, a dismissal without prejudice was again decided, until such time as new and better data from investigation should be obtained. The petitioners state that several of the physicians that did not appear to submit their testimony continue to work at the hospital, and no procedures have been executed to find them there. On August 4, 2008, the case was reopened again at the request of the petitioners. 25. They maintain that the judicial system delayed the case and later closed it without those responsible being punished, and hence the case’s result was one of impunity. They contend that they have not been heard either appropriately or in a timely manner, and that despite the passing of months the procedures requested by them to clarify the facts of the case have not been carried out. It is the petitioner’s opinion that the judicial authorities were covering up for the physicians who attended the alleged victim, and that therefore they are victims of a denial of justice. They state, in addition, that they were humiliated and intimidated at the court when they appeared before it to seek justice. 26. The petitioners report that, after a complaint was filed on January 13, 2006 by Vinicio Poblete Tapia against the Sótero del Río Hospital, a mediation hearing was held on April 4, 2006 in the mediation unit of the Consejo de Defensa del Estado [Council for the Defense of the State]. The hearing was attended by the petitioners and the hospital’s lawyer, but it was postponed until further facts were gathered, in particular with the physicians involved also attending, and with Mr. Poblete Vilches’ medical record. The Commission has no knowledge of any follow-up hearing having been held. 7