31 125. In this case, given the characteristics of the acknowledgement made by the State, the Court finds it essential to examine on the alleged violations. 126. Regarding the actions of the State’s investigative bodies in relation to the death of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, and considering the acknowledgement of the facts made by the State and the body of evidence in this case, the Court finds that it has been proved that, 18 years after the murder of Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, the investigation into the case is still in its initial phase, and has not made any progress in the identification of the authors, nor have criminal charges been filed against anyone. To the contrary, throughout these years, questions relating to the competence of different prosecutors’ offices arose repeatedly, and reached the extreme that seven different prosecutors having intervened, although only formally, some of whom decided to close the case file. From the evidence produced in this case, the Court observes that, after taking some initial steps, the police investigative bodies merely issued communications with general assumptions regarding the authorship of the facts.87 127. The Court observes that the absence of investigative measures was accompanied by the disappearance of probative elements that had been obtained; particularly, the reports of the autopsies on Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz,88 which, according to information provided by the State, have recently resulted in the opening of an investigation (investigación fiscal) for the crime against the administration of justice of concealment (encubrimiento real). The Court wishes to emphasize the particular gravity of the disappearance of these probative elements, which made it necessary to conduct an exhumation and perform new autopsies several years later. The Court notes that, in the case of Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, the recent autopsy reports all indicate that she was shot, a conclusion that differs completely from the official version of the facts upheld for several years by the authorities in charge of the investigation. Indeed, Report No. 11–D4DINCOTE provided to the body of evidence by the State, indicates that the body of “Consuelo García-Santa Cruz does not reveal any impact by a bullet, but does reveal serious head injuries possibly caused by the tire of a moving vehicle, and this killed her […].”89 128. The Court considers that it has been proved that, despite the complaint filed by the next of kin of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní in 2001, which led to the reopening of the investigations, jurisdictional issues arose one again and effective measures of investigation were not adopted (supra para. 76).90 87 Cf. Report No. 05-2005-2º FPSP-MP-FN issued by the Regular Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office on December 2, 2005 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 6, pages 921 to 929). 88 Cf. Report No. 05-2005-2º FPSP-MP-FN issued by the Regular Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office on December 2, 2005 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 6, page 928); and Report No. 11–D4-DINCOTE, issued by the National Counter-terrorism Directorate on January 2, 1995 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 1, page 748). 89 Cf. Report No. 11–D4-DINCOTE, issued by the National Counter-terrorism Directorate on January 2, 1995 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 1, page 740). 90 The 45th Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the investigation to the 43rd Prosecutor’s Office, which had been responsible for the case in the first place; this Office then forwarded the investigation to the Dean/Superior Prosecutor (Fiscal Superior Decano) of the Lima Judicial District, “so that his office could establish competence in the case.” On August 19, 2002, the Dean/Superior Fiscal forwarded the case file to the 28th Prosecutor’s Office, specialized in the crime of terrorism, and the only action taken by the latter was to request the 43rd Prosecutor’s Office to send “all the files corresponding to the investigation.” When forwarding the file, the 43rd Prosecutor’s Office sent it to the 2nd Prosecutor’s Office, because the latter was investigating a report on the acts allegedly committed by the Rodrigo Franco Commando. Subsequently, the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor’s Office for Enforced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves took over the investigation into the acts allegedly committed by the Rodrigo Franco Commando, but in 2005 the case was returned to the 2nd Prosecutor’s Office, where it is now. Cf. Report No. 05-2005-2º FPSP-MP-FN issued by the