160. Thus, bearing in mind both the facts outlined and the case law cited, it is appropriate for the Court, within the framework of its jurisdiction and functions, to determine whether or not the State’s actions in the course of the prosecutor’s investigation, considered as a whole, adhered to the standards of due diligence required to satisfy the right to have access to justice. In other words, it is for the Court to determine whether or not the actions of a State organ, such as those in charge of the investigations94, constitute a wrongful international act in light of the provisions of the Convention. This does not mean that it substitutes it, but merely that it specifies the international consequences of their actions or omissions in this case and rules accordingly. 161. The Court has confirmed that, in the course of the prosecutor’s investigation, a large number of actions were carried out (supra paras. 154 to 157) in accordance with the standards of due diligence mentioned and that, in addition, there were certain omissions and delays in carrying out certain procedures (supra paras. 158 and 159). As noted previously, the investigation must be assessed as a whole, considering that it is an obligation of means and not of results, and bearing in mind that it is not up to the Court, in principle, to decide on the admissibility of investigative measures (supra paras. 153 and 160). Likewise, it is necessary to consider whether the occurrence of certain omissions or delays is sufficient to constitute international responsibility by the State. This must also be assessed in light of the matter that must be investigated, given that, in this case, the State’s role in the murder of Joe Castillo has not been proven. 162. Based on the foregoing, it may be inferred that the investigation in this case was conducted in a reasonable manner. The omissions and delays mentioned, which are related to specific aspects or proceedings of the prosecutor’s investigation, assessed in the context of the investigation as a whole, are not of a sufficiently serious nature to attribute to the State international responsibility for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection of the alleged victims. 163. Regarding the allegations of the Commission and the representatives on the decision to archive the prosecutor’s file and having regard to the points made by expert witness Pedro Berrizbeitía95, the Court notes that at the time of ordering the case to be archived some procedures were still pending (supra para. 158). However, said decision, as was indicated by the representatives, was based on an assessment of the existing evidence by the prosecuting body. In this regard, the Court recalls that it cannot “settle differences that the parties may have on the specific scope of the evidence or the application of domestic law in matters that are not directly related to the fulfillment of international human rights obligations.”96 Moreover, the Court considers that, since legal options existed to challenge the decision to archive the case and request the continuation of the investigations97, there is no record that this was done by the alleged victims. 94 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 4.1, supra. 95 The expert witness Pedro Berrizbeitía said that “the order to archive the case was legally inadmissible, [since] the investigation had not been exhausted” (Merits file, pages 585 to 605). 96 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 102. 97 In this regard, expert witness Pedro Berrizbeitía stated that “faced with an order to archive an investigation the victim may contest the suspension of the investigation in two different ways: […] he may request the Prosecutor’s Office to carry out different [procedures] and thereby ensure a reopening of the investigation. This power is established in […] Article 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[. Also, faced with a groundless or poorly founded order to archive a case, [the victim] may turn to the supervising judge to annul it and forward the records 41