106 196. Subsequently, the Inter-American Court expanded the provisional measures in favor of Jorge Lemus Alvarado, linked to the ongoing criminal proceeding in Guatemala, and his next of kin (supra para. 62). 197. Furthermore, on the date the instant Judgment is issued, those responsible for the threats and intimidations suffered by these persons have not yet been identified nor punished. 198. This Court deems that the facts described against the family of the victim, the staff of the Myrna Mack Foundation and the staff of AVANCSO were aimed, as was already stated with respect to the legal operators, police investigators and witnesses, at frightening them into desisting from their intention of ensuring that the facts of the instant case be investigated and that all those responsible for the extra-legal killing of Myrna Mack Chang be identified and punished. 199. In light of the above, this Court deems that the State, to ensure due process, must provide all necessary means to protect the legal operators, investigators, witnesses and next of kin of the victims from harassment and threats aimed at obstructing the proceeding and avoiding elucidation of the facts, as well as covering up those responsible for said facts. f) Lack of diligence in processing of the criminal proceeding by the judges 200. This Court has established that “[i]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine domestic proceedings.”259 201. Thus, given the specifics of the case and the nature of the abridgments alleged by the Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang, the Court must examine the domestic judicial proceedings as a whole to attain a comprehensive perception of them and to establish whether said actions contravene the standards on the right to fair trial and judicial protection and the right to effective remedy, derived from Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 202. With respect to the criminal proceeding, it is necessary to state that the Court, when it refers to the right to fair trial, also known as procedural guarantees, has established that for said guarantees to truly exist in a proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention, it is necessary for all requirements to be fulfilled that are “designed to protect, to ensure or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof,”260 in other words, the “prerequisites necessary to ensure the adequate protection of those persons whose rights or obligations are pending judicial determination.”261 259 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 120; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 250, para. 188; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 8, para. 222. 260 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 124; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 147; and Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 25. 261 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 124; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 260, para. 147; and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of Guarantees of Due Legal Process. Advisory OpinionOC-16/99 of January 1, 1987. Series A No. 16, para. 118.