34 2006, it was not until November of 2007 that investigations before the competent jurisdiction reinitiated, that is, seven years later. 133. The Commission similarly notes that on October 17, 2008, the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Huancayo, 11 months after initiating the investigations, closed the case file because Mr. Quispealaya Vilcapoma could not be located, despite the fact that the closing of the file was notified to his sister, upon the reasoning that a medical-legal certificate was needed to establish Mr. Quispealaya’s disability. In this respect, the Commission considers that the State has not explained why the Office of the Attorney General did not take into account the medical certificates that were in the file and that dated from January 25, June 11 and September 18, 2002, which were prepared by public entities (Department of Ophthalmology of the Military Hospital and the Medical-legal Institute of Huancayo), as well as the forensic psychological examination of June 11, 2002 performed by the Medical-legal Institute of the Medical-legal Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Huancayo. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the Public Prosecutor did not try to locate the witnesses to the events, such as Second Sergeants José Lazo Medina and Delfín Alcántara Durán, or the soldier Edson Huayra Arancibia, who corroborated the complaint filed by Mr. Quispealaya in the civil courts, in order to take their statement about the events. 134. Additionally, the IACHR considers that the competent authorities did not adopt the means at their disposal to locate Mr. Quispealaya in light of the fact that, as contained in the proven facts, it was his mother, Ms. Victoria Vilcapoma Taquia, along with the Human Rights Commission (COMISEDH), who presented the initial report before the Roundtable of the Office of the Attorney General on February 28, 2002, and included both the identification number of Ms. Vilcapoma and the designation of two lawyers of COMISEDH to represent Mr. Quispealaya, including their attorney registration numbers before the Lima Bar Association, as well as the address, telephone and email of COMISEDH. 135. The Commission reiterates that according to the jurisprudence of the Court, the right to access to justice requires that the facts be investigated and, if appropriate, criminal responsibility assigned, in an effective manner and in a reasonable time period, which is why owing to the necessity to guarantee the rights of victims, a prolonged delay can by itself constitute a violate of judicial guarantees.118 Investigation of the threats and the protection of the subject matter and purpose of the criminal proceedings 136. The Commission observes that Mr. Quispealaya informed the authorities of the threats and intimidation that he suffered at the hands of noncommissioned officer Hilaquita so that he would desist from the complaint of torture. In this sense, the case file shows that on June 29, 2001, Mr. Quispealaya told Dr. Chang that noncommissioned officer Hilaquita had threatened him if he reported the latter, which is why he had not told the truth the first time he went to the infirmary. Similarly, the file shows that Dr. Chang reported these facts to Commander Torres on July 6, 2001, but that the military authorities took no actions in response. It is also clear from the file before this Commission that on February 28, 2002, the petitioners reported to the Public Prosecutor that noncommissioned officer Hilaquita, who was in charge of directing the military training, had hit soldier Valdemir Quispealaya and his companions with sticks in the back and legs and had psychologically abused them during their 118 I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Perú. Judgment of 22 September 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 124.