said that on the day of the murder he was in Bluefields with two other persons.200 There is nothing in the record to show that this was investigated. Nor does the record indicate that Charles Presida's photograph was shown to the witnesses who had seen the three individuals who rented the ground floor of María Luisa Acosta's house and who would have been able to say whether or not Mr. Presida was the third person mentioned since the start of the investigation. Furthermore, when Wilberth Ochoa, the second perpetrator, gave his statement he was not questioned about Charles Presida’s possible participation either. In short, there is no record of any additional investigative measure being taken to pursue and exhaust that line of inquiry in a meaningful way. On the contrary, as was described, it was simply discarded when the man questioned about his possible participation denied it, with no follow-up of any kind. 102. Based on the foregoing in this section, the Commission considers that these serious omissions, despite all the evidence that emerged in the investigation, further abetted the alleged instigators, which, in the Commission's opinion, goes beyond a breach of the duty to investigate with due diligence. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that the State also failed in that duty with respect to the search for, identification, and punishment, as appropriate, of the third perpetrator of Mr. García Valle's murder, in spite of the fact that the existence of a third perpetrator emerged from the outset and there were multiple investigative steps to complete, which were not carried out. The foregoing sends a message of tolerance of potential situations of use of violence as a mechanism of retaliation and intimidation against the work of human rights defenders. 2. Barriers to justice 103. The Commission notes that another aspect that highlights the lack of a meaningful probe to establish the identity of the instigators in this case is what happened with regard to the denial of the appeal against the definitive dismissal of Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez. As the established facts show, that appeal was refused because Mrs. Acosta's representative did not supply the court with the paper to issue the relevant copies, in accordance with Article 471 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 104. In that regard, the Inter-American Court has held that “the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and … the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities.”201 This Court has also found that a pointless formality arises “when it is shown that remedies are denied for trivial reasons or without an examination of the merits, ... the effect of which is to impede certain persons from invoking internal remedies that would normally be available to others.”202 While states “may and should establish admissibility principles and criteria for domestic recourses,” those principles should ensure “legal certainty, for the proper and functional administration of justice and the effective protection of human rights.”203 105. The Commission considers that to give priority to economic aspects over access to justice for those seeking protection for their rights finds no justification in legal certainty or in the proper and functional administration of justice; rather, it constitutes a requirement that places additional burdens on those seeking access justice. As the Inter-American Court has stated, “any domestic law or measure that imposes costs or in any other way obstructs individuals’ access to the courts and that is not warranted by what is reasonably needed for the administration of justice must be regarded as contrary to Article 8(1) of the Convention.”204 200Appendix 70. Signed statement by Charles Jeremiah Presida, under preliminary investigation, before the Bluefields District Criminal Court Judge, April 18, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folios 83 and 84. Appendices to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 201 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, par. 61; I/A Court H.R., Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, par. 42. Similarly, see I/A Court H.R., The “Panel Blanca” Case (Paniagua Morales et al). Judgment of March 8, 1998, Series C No. 37, par. 70. 202 I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case v. Honduras, Merits Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, par. 71. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. pars. 126 and 127. 203 204 par. 50. I/A Court H.R., Cantos Case v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97,