137. Fourth, the Commission finds that in the course of the proceedings there were long periods of inactivity when no procedures were carried out. In that regard, the IACHR highlights: (i) the delay of almost two years after the events occurred before the order was given to open trial proceedings; (ii) the loss of the case file for two months toward the end of 1997; and (iii) the delay of more than three years in opening new oral proceedings as instructed by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in April 2000. 138. Finally, the IACHR takes note of the reports of the CEH and MINUGUA, which are consistent with the available information on the investigations and recorded different procedural irregularities on the part of the various judges who presided over the investigation. Those flaws included: (i) failure to carry out certain procedures; (ii) the acceptance, contrary to law, of different applications and exhibits presented by the accused's defense; and (iii) in contrast to that, the unjustified rejection of evidence and statements for the plaintiff. Added to that, as the following sections indicate, was the failure by the State to adopt protective measures against intimidation and harassment of prosecutors, judges, witnesses, and petitioners; in addition to the unreasonable length of the proceedings — almost 9 years. 139. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that although the Guatemalan courts convicted 14 members of the Armed Forces for the extrajudicial execution of, and injuries caused to, the victims on the Xamán estate, throughout the proceedings at the domestic level that led to that outcome in the process there were flaws and irregularities that, aside from anything else, amounted to breaches of the duty to investigate with due diligence, in violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection recognized at Articles 8(1) and 25(1) the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of the surviving victims and the next of kin of all the victims. 3.3 Situation of risk to legal operators, witnesses and other persons involved in the proceeding 140. In its case law the Court has established the State’s obligation to “adopt ex officio and immediately sufficient investigation and overall protection measures regarding any act of coercion, intimidation and threat towards witnesses and investigators.”215 The IACHR considers that compliance with that obligation by adequately addressing any additional obstacles that may arise from intimidation and harassment of different actors in the proceeding is directly related to the duty to investigate with due diligence under inter-American standards. 141. In that connection, the petitioners presented information regarding the various threats and harassment directed at them, the surviving victims and members of the community, prosecutors, and judges. That situation was corroborated, not only by the CEH, but also by the special prosecutor in the case, Ramiro Contreras, who had to resign owing to those circumstances. 142. In spite of the petitioners' submissions in that regard and the conclusions reached by the CEH, the State has not offered any information to suggest that it took steps to address those obstacles or to protect the individuals who were being threatened and harassed. There is also no information to be found in the record in that regard. 143. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in the course of the investigation the State failed to discharge its obligation to remove the obstacles created by the threats and harassment directed at various actors in the proceeding, which, in turn, had repercussions on the investigation, particularly in terms of the delay, which is analyzed in the following section. Based on the foregoing too, therefore, the IACHR finds that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection recognized at Articles 8(1) and 25(1) the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of the surviving victims and the next of kin of all the victims. 215 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 107. 31