the [female] Assistant Prosecutor […], because they already knew the area.” He also explained that there were delays in carrying out raids in this case, because “it was a very closed community and when you go there, people either fear that you’re a criminal or else they’re afraid of being “snitches” and suffering the consequences of any information that they might give us. For that reason, approaching a house in that area was extremely dangerous for us and for the inhabitants themselves.” Likewise, he stated that : [I]n the file there could be around 16, 17 formal, written interviews, apart from other interviews that are not documented - as occurs in any investigation where you approach a local [resident] and ask questions, and you can see he’s afraid to answer. The fear is palpable. In general, a culture of terror exists in Guatemala. In Guatemala, there is a ‘no witness’ culture. I recall an experience I had during that investigation when I went to identify some houses, and left [the Assistant Prosecutor] there so that she could interview people and some neighbors asked me why I had left her there alone.” 353 234. Furthermore, he explained that “the culture of terror” “generally [affects] witnesses” and “also implies that they don’t give us all the information about the crime”, and “it generates impunity, impunity at all levels.” 354 On this point, and with regard to the Departmental Assistant of Escuintla, the State is aware that in his 2004 Annual Report, the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala confirmed an increase “in acts of violence, common crime or organized crime,” and that “[m]any people who have been victims of an act of violence do not report it to the justice operators, owing to ignorance, fear or mistrust.” 355 The Court recalls that in the Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, it noted that “several reports that analyze the internal conflict in Guatemala and the subsequent situation confirm that the denial of justice and impunity persist, due to the phenomena of terror and intimidation that developed, with cumulative and lasting effects, which prompted the population not to report human rights violations to the authorities, even when the levels of violence were declining.” 356 235. Finally, the file contains certain evidence that allows the Court to conclude that, in this case, witnesses and deponents feared the consequences of any information they might give; however, there is no record of the State having provided the necessary measures of protection once it became aware of these facts, in order to ensure the safety of investigators, witnesses and the relatives of the victims in the investigation, particularly, when on at least one occasion, there was an express request for protection for a witness. 357 The manner in which this situation affected the witnesses and deponents meant that some of them did not provide information to the investigators regarding the facts, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the investigation and contributing to the impunity in which this case remains until today, nearly 10 years later. B.1.4. Conclusions 236. In relation to the investigation into Mr. A.A.’s death, the Court has found irregularities in the initial investigative procedures which cannot be corrected in this specific case. The subsequent procedures were also characterized by the State’s lethargy in the conduct of the investigation, since there were omissions and delays in gathering and 353 Cf. Statement rendered by E.M., a prosecutor assigned to the case before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. 354 Cf. Statement rendered by E.M., a prosecutor assigned to the case before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. 355 Cf. Annual Report 2004, of the Human Rights Ombudsman Guatemala, January 2005, p. 210. Available at: http://www.pdh.org.gt/archivos/descargas/Documents/Reports%20Anuales/report2004.pdf. 356 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 174. Citing, among others, IACHR, Justice and Social Inclusion: the Challenges of Democracy in Guatemala, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118, Doc. 5 rev. 1, December 29, 2003 Available at: http://www.IACHR.oas.org/pdf%20files/GUATEMALA.2003.pdf. 357 The file shows that COPREDEH requested information on the reasons why the Public Prosecution Service had not offered judicial protection to the witness offered by the family of A.A. In response, on April 2, 2009 the Prosecuting Agent explained: “On the one hand [,] this institution does not have jurisdiction to decide on judicial protection; this is the direct responsibility of the judicial body [.] [O]n the other hand [,] for a person to be considered for the Witness Protection Program he must fulfill the requirements established in the rules, including: the statement of this witness must be decisive for ordering an arrest, filing charges or obtaining the conviction of a suspect because he has directly witnessed the events and he has stated that his testimony carries risk[.] and there is evidence of this. [I]n this case nobody has claimed to have directly witnessed the event in which Mr. [A.A.] died, for which reason nobody [has been] included in that program.” Cf. Report of April 2, 2009, addressed to the Coordinator of the Secretariat of Technical Coordination (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1320 and 1321), and Report of April 2, 2009, addressed to the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1326 and 1327). 70