32 105. Later, when the instant case was being heard by the Inter-American Commission, the authorities carried out new investigation procedures (supra paras. 59 to 63 and 67), which must be positively assessed. That notwithstanding, the Court notes that the negligence of the authorities in charge of examining the circumstance of the death of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández through the timely collection of evidence in situ and the timely taking of the relevant testimony can hardly be redressed through late evidentiary procedures,128 as evidenced by the reports issued by the authorities in charge of the investigation (supra paras. 58 and 60 to 62). In that regard, the Court found takes note of the fact that one of the individuals identified as witness of the events died recently (supra para. 67). 106. In addition to the overt negligence in furthering the investigation, as mentioned before, the Court has verified through the body of evidence that certain witnesses have been threatened (supra paras. 59 to 61 and 64) and other individuals were coerced to render false testimonies; these circumstances have had an intimidating and discouraging effect on those in charge of investigations and potential witnesses, seriously affecting the effectiveness of the investigation. At the request of the representatives, this Court had to step in, through the adoption of provisional measures, in view of the hardening of threats to a given witness,129 which indicates that, to date -14 years after the occurrence of the events- the risk has not yet come to an end. The fact that those responsible have not yet been punished gives rise to an intimidating effect that is permanent in nature. 107. This Court considers that, to fulfill the obligation to investigate, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State should adopt ex officio and immediately sufficient investigation and overall protection measures regarding any act of coercion, intimidation and threat towards witnesses and investigators, as suggested by its own authorities in various opportunities (supra paras. 58, 60 and 62). In the instant case, the participation of at least one State agent in the obstruction of the investigation became evident during the first weeks of such proceedings (supra paras. 57 and 58);130 that notwithstanding, judicial actions against them were brought nine years afterwards (supra para. 64). Furthermore, there is evidence that since 1996, the Bureau of Criminal Investigations knew that certain witnesses were afraid of giving testimony (supra para. 58), but no protection scheme was ever implemented. The records show also that the authorities that conducted the investigation on the deprivation of life of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández perceived risks associated with their work. In that regard, in a given opportunity they requested that the investigation unit be strengthened through the provision of human resources, arms and a vehicle, and later suggested to transfer the case to a prosecutor’s office outside the city of Tela (supra para. 60 and 62). There is no information as to whether such measures were adopted or not. 128 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 316. 129 Cf. Provisional measures Dencen Alvarado regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2008. 130 Cf. memorandum addressed to Bureau of Criminal Investigations director Wilfredo Alvarado, supra note 44, and witness statement rendered by Saúl Benjamín Zapata-Mejía on January 20, 2004, supra note 31.