Gómez's death was no isolated incident, but rather part of a pattern of attacks on trade unionists. They pointed out that, because of that, the State had violated Mr. Gómez's right to freedom of association. 15. As regards the right to protection of the family, the petitioners said that Mr. Gómez's inner family circle had been destroyed. They said that Mr. Gómez's parents had suffered enormously from what had happened and their suffering had been exacerbated by impunity. 16. With regard to rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the petitioners pointed out that , even though they had reported Mr. Gómez's disappearance, the State had not taken any steps to ascertain his whereabouts. The said that six days after he had disappeared, Mr. Gómez's body had been found. They said it had been found by chance by someone who had been walking in a district in Guatemala City and had found a corpse, which was later identified as that of Mr. Gómez. 17. The petitioners said that it was after that that they had filed complaints with State authorities, reporting that he had been murdered. They said that the only inquiries that had been made had been interviews with family members and members of the Trade Union. They said that this case was part of a pattern of systematic refusal to investigate human rights violations against trade unionists. They explained that the judicial file had been archived shortly after the investigations had begun due to a supposed lack of evidence for identifying the perpetrators. They alleged that, as a result, the facts of the case have gone completely unpunished. B. Position of the State 18. Regarding the admissibility of the case, the State argued that the requirements of Article 44 of the American Convention have not been met. They say that this is because the initial petition failed to state that the alleged perpetrators of the disappearance, acts of torture, and murder of Mr. Gómez were State agents. 19. As regards the merits of the matter, the State did not recognize the context alleged by the petitioners. The State explained that the behavior described by the petitioners did not constitute evidence of a reiterated practice fitting the circumstance surrounding the murder of Mr. Gómez. 20. The State presented various different arguments during proceedings before the IACHR. Initially, the State maintained that an investigation had been started in order to throw light on what had happened to Mr. Gómez and identify those responsible. It stated that "new evidence is expected to be provided to permit the identification and punishment of those [responsible]." 21. In its writ of November 1999, the State acknowledged that information had not been gathered to single out those responsible for the death of Mr. Gómez and said that the Public Prosecutors' Office had archived the case. 22. In its written communication of December 11, 2006, the State indicated that "from the start, those suspected, on the basis of statements made by both family members of the victim and witnesses, of having committed the crime were " two Korean citizens. The State indicated that those two persons "were the owners of the assembly plant (...) with whom, according to witnesses, [Mr. Gómez] had frequently quarreled." The State reported that another person had also been interviewed who, according to Mr. Antonio Gómez (Alejandro Gómez's father) had threatened him because he [Alejandro] had been his wife's lover. 23. The State maintained that there was no evidence of State agents having been involved in the facts of the case. It said that civilians had always been named as possible perpetrators. It added that "the changes in the information as to who should be considered a suspect in the murder of Mr. (...) Gómez Virula illustrated the difficult the Public Prosecutor's Office had had in singling out a specific individual." 3