subjected to harassment and threats. As a result of that, they claim, they went to the Supreme Court of Justice but obtained no favorable outcome. The petitioners also claim there was an unjustified delay in investigating the murder of Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches and that it was the authorities who delayed the proceedings through their various dismissals of the case. 21. In addition, they contend that on repeated occasions, they asked the Ministry of Health to open administrative committal proceedings regarding the Sótero del Río Hospital, which the ministry failed to do. 22. The petitioners allege that they were discriminated against on economic grounds “since [they] never had the economic resources to retain a professional attorney; [they] only had law students who were changed every six months [and] many of them did nothing,” while the doctors responsible for Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches’s death had professional legal counsel. They also state that the judge acted without impartiality and equality with respect to the different lawyers. That discrimination, they claim, could be seen in “the judge’s resistance to pursue formalities that were essential for clearing up the murder.” 23. As regards the impact on Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches’s family, the petitioners contend that they have suffered serious harm arising directly from his death through inexcusable negligence and “passive euthanasia.” Among those repercussions, they include the death of Mrs. Blanca Tapia Encina and the enormous pain and suffering inflicted on the family, in amounts that they allege is impossible to quantify. They add that Vinicio Marco Antonio Poblete Tapia is suffering from constantly declining health, the result of the authorities’ idleness and indifference, and that he is battling cancer, as a result of which he has lost a kidney. They state that Cesia Leyla Poblete Tapia had to leave her job following her parents’ deaths to take care of her brother Gonzalo Poblete Tapia, who is a person with disabilities. They contend that she was affected by depression and attempted suicide in 2010. They add that their home burned down and that, in 2012, the government tried to take their home away from them to cover Mrs. Cesia Leyla Poblete’s hospital bill. 24. They reiterate that they have suffered threats, humiliation, persecutions, and obstacles of all kind from the agencies of the State as a consequence of their quest for justice, including the proceedings before the inter-American system. Finally, the petitioners claim that as consequence of their parents’ deaths, they have descended into extreme poverty. B. B. Position of the State 25. The Commission has not received the State’s comments on the merits. As indicated in the “Processing” section, the exchanges with the State at the merits stage were related to the attempts to reach a friendly settlement. Regardless of that, in this section the Commission will set out the contentions made by the State at the admissibility stage that could bear a relation to the merits of the case. 26. The State maintained that on November 12, 2001, the petitioners filed a criminal complaint for the crime of negligent homicide with respect to Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches; after a conflict of jurisdiction was resolved, it was admitted on February 13, 2002, and order for its investigation was issued. It noted that the investigation has been dismissed on two occasions. It added that the petitioners have at all times had access to the case file. 27. It indicated that the case was at the committal stage until June 2004 and that, on February 28, 2004, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Dr. Luis Carvajal Freire, who has not appeared to give a statement. 28. It stated that the ongoing investigation is complex in that it involves culpable homicide resulting from possible medical negligence, and so the judge must rely on the assistance of experts and there are difficulties in accumulating an adequate body of evidence. It maintained that 4