proceedings constitutes an additional factor of impunity and denial of justice to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims. 1.3. Conclusion 117. The Commission concludes that the domestic investigations and proceedings have not provided effective remedies to guarantee the access to justice, to find out the truth about the events, to investigate and punish all those responsible, and to provide reparations for the consequences of the violations. As a result, the IACHR stresses that these elements have, to date, more than 13 years after the crime, contributed to the continued failure to clarify Ángel Pacheco's killing and, as a result, have upheld the situation of impunity for the instigators and perpetrators of the crime. 118. Therefore, the IACHR considers that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection as set forth in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Article 11 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Ángel Pacheco León: i) his mother Andrea Pacheco; ii) his spouse Blanca Rosa Herrera; iii) his brothers and sisters Otilia, Concepción, José, Blanca, María, Francisco, Norma, Marleny, Jamileth, Jaqueline, and Jorge, who all bear the Pacheco surname; iv) his sons and daughters Jimy Pacheco, Miguel Ángel Pacheco; Cinthia Pacheco Devicente, Miguel Pacheco Devicente, Tania Pacheco López, Juan Pacheco Euceda, and Bianca Pacheco Herrera. 2. Right to life (Article 4 of the American Convention) 2.1. Prior consideration 119. The petitioners alleged, after the admissibility report was issued, that the State was responsible for violating the right to life as established in Article 4 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Ángel Pacheco León. They alleged that, because the investigations into the killing of Mr. Pacheco turned out to be unfruitful because no person was punished, the State failed in its duty to guarantee his right to life. They contended that the State has tolerated the situation of impunity for the crime by not conducting a serious impartial investigation. 120. As for the State, it indicated that it would not rule on the possible violation of this right because it was not included by the IACHR in its admissibility report and was recently alleged by the petitioners in the merits stage. It contended that, without detriment to the above, the State had not violated this right because the threats made against Mr. Pacheco were not reported to the judicial authorities, which prevented the adoption of protection measures that would have guaranteed his life. 121. The Commission notes that in its admissibility report it did not rule on the alleged violation of Article 4 of the American Convention. The IACHR also observes that this right was alleged by the petitioners after the admissibility report had been issued, that is, at the merits stage. Regarding this, the Commission stresses that the facts supporting this allegation are an integral and inseparable part of the case and, in addition, emerge from the information and documents provided by the parties in the course of the proceedings of the present case. 122. By virtue of the above, the Commission deems that, regardless of the fact that the petitioners submitted this allegation after the ruling on the case's admissibility, on the basis of a review of the case file with the IACHR, facts have emerged that support a review of Article 4 of the American Convention. The IACHR also notes that, during the proceedings, the State were apprised of facts on the basis of which said allegation was made.155 On the basis of the preceding arguments, the Commission shall take this particular element into consideration. 155 It must be mentioned here that the Inter-American Court has established that the inclusion of the articles of the American Convention by the IACHR in the stage of the merits “does not entail any violation of the [State’s] right to defend itself” in cases where the State has heard the facts that substantiate the alleged violation. See: I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 50.