73 182. With regard to the violation of Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) neither Bámaca Velásquez nor his wife received the judicial protection that the State must grant them, according to Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, not only because they did not have access to a simple recourse before a competent, independent and impartial authority, but also because the right of the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez to know his fate and, then, the whereabouts of his remains, was violated; b) the State did not fulfill its obligation to conduct the pertinent investigations to save the life of Bámaca Velásquez, despite the contradictions established between the descriptions given by the magistrate and the coroner of the body found after the armed encounter. Moreover, the exhumation of May 20, 1992, was cancelled based on various obstacles that sought to “cover up the fact that Mr. Bámaca Velásquez was not buried in the Retalhuleu cemetery”. If an investigation had been initiated at the time of the exhumation planned for May 20, 1992, that is, if the right to judicial protection of Bámaca Velásquez had been guaranteed, his life might have been saved. Although it was possible to conduct an exhumation in August 1993, and it was determined that the corpse exhumed was not that of Bámaca Velásquez, no other exhumation could be conducted; c) by keeping Bámaca Velásquez in clandestine detention, the State denied his right to file a judicial recourse by his own means; furthermore, by not adequately investigating the petitions for habeas corpus filed by Jennifer Harbury in 1993, and by declaring them without grounds, Bámaca Velásquez was deprived of the right to the judicial protection of his life and safety and Jennifer Harbury was deprived of her right to know the fate of her husband and, then, to know the whereabouts of his remains. The petition for habeas corpus filed by the Guatemalan Attorney General in 1994 also had negative results; d) with regard to the special pre-trial investigation initiated by the Ombudsman in 1994, the Commission stated that, although it “constituted [...] the first serious investigation effort”, during which members of the armed forces who were allegedly involved in the facts were questioned (supra 81), this process “was begun too late to save [the] life” of Bámaca Velásquez. Moreover, the armed forces obstructed the investigation, both by not telling the truth when questioned and also by not presenting the evidence required by the Attorney General; therefore, it cannot be considered that adequate judicial protection was provided; e) the number of judicial proceedings filed in this case without results “constitute[s] an omission of the right to judicial protection and a way of tormenting Mrs. Harbury”, and the acts of violence that have occurred, have prevented the execution of a valid investigation, which offers due judicial protection. The State has not fulfilled the obligation to conduct a serious investigation and, “instead of seeking the truth, the Government [has attempted] to defend itself and to defend its agents against any claim owing to an illegal action”. The Commission added that the “procedures initiated at the end of [19]94 were not [directed] to clarifying the case, but rather to distracting public attention and harassing Mrs. Harbury”;