22 his next of kin. In this regard, the Commission indicated that the investigations were paralyzed on several occasions36 and that some of the material and intellectual authors of the events at issue have not been investigated. 72. With respect to the criminal proceedings carried out before the Third Criminal Court (“Juzgado Tercero de lo Penal”) under case number 110/98, which were designed to investigate the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto and the alleged threats against his family, the Commission alleged that military authorities obstructed the investigation into the movements of the San Benito Battalion (“Batallón San Benito) of the now defunct National Police (“Policía Nacional”) on the date of Mr. García Prieto’s homicide. According to the Commission, this obstruction prevented a determination of whether members of that battalion were present at the scene of the crime and if so, what actions they took. The Commission also indicated that during the proceedings under case number 110/98, the Division of Criminal Investigation (“División de Investigación Criminal”) was ordered to provide information regarding the activities of Carlos Romero Alfaro, who had been indicted as a possible third material author of the crime. In response, the Division submitted the daily incident log in which the activities undertaken by Romero Alfaro on the day of the events were documented. According to the Commission, several inconsistencies were revealed which were never investigated. 73. In addition, the Commission expressed that although “Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s parents […] filed a new criminal complaint and requested specific investigative steps in 2003”, the State has not undertaken a diligent investigation in response, despite the abundant evidence indicating the participation of a third individual in the crime. With respect to the principle of expeditious justice, the Commission considered that “the delay in the present case was manifested in the time which had transpired in obtaining the punishment of some of the perpetrators in their respective criminal proceedings. These proceedings lasted until 2001” and were characterized by lapses in which procedural activity was insignificant. 74. The common intervener concurred with the arguments expressed in the Commission’s application and also maintained that in the criminal proceedings under case number 110/98 “several acts and omissions exist which demonstrate that the judicial authorities […] failed in their obligation to advance an adequate investigation and judicial process capable [of leading] to the punishment of those responsible, […] which affected the right of the victims’ next of kin to know the truth.” The common intervener also indicated that “it is clear that the authorities in charge of the judicial proceedings dismissed or rejected, without any justification, evidence that rested on the proceedings.” 75. The State, for its part, alleged that in the present case, Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s homicide “was fully investigated by the competent institutions, [and] that the investigations undertaken determined that the homicide was committed by 36 The Commission indicated that these delays occurred: i) for 11 months after José Raúl Argueta Rivas was found guilty in case number 262/94 before the Fifth Criminal Court of San Salvador (“Juzgado Quinto Penal de San Salvador”) on October 7, 1996 until the initiation of a new investigation under case number 110/98 before the Third Penal Court of San Salvador (“Juzgado Tercero Penal de San Salvador”) on September 5, 1997; ii) from June 7, 2001, the date on which Ismael Ortiz Díaz was found guilty, until June 13, 2003, date on which the prosecutor opened file number 34-00-03; and iii) from June 2004 until the present, during which time no investigative action has been taken according to the prosecutor’s file. In other words, the authorities have not undertaken any investigative action with respect to the identification of the intellectual authors of the homicide subsequent to the end of the judicial proceedings in case number 110/98.