53 305 fruitless or merely as a step taken by private interests that depends on the initiative of the victim or his 306 family or upon the submission of evidence by private individuals. 274. The Commission has isolated procedural documents from the file on the investigation into the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, during which various steps were taken. Based on its analysis of the items available in the file, the Commission emphasizes the following omissions, among others: Even though the investigation began immediately after the event, no investigative measures are recorded after January 1997 and up to July 21, 1998. Throughout all of 1997, procedural activity involved the conclusion of the summary investigation by the Municipal Court of Santiago Mariño and Libertador and the appeals filed against this ruling. However, there is no indication of specific measures taken during this extended period. The investigation and criminal process lasted for approximately seven years, during which there are long periods of inactivity and as yet unjustified delays in conducting tests and in resolving the appeal. Although there are consistencies in the assessment of the first instance judge and other authorities who heard the appeal regarding the implications of the abrasion ring [halo de contusion] in the evaluation of the evidence, there are no specific measures taken to resolve this contradiction. The Commission feels that this test is fundamentally important in determining the legality of the use of force. As indicated above, the fact that the officers were acting while “on duty” but dressed as civilians and carrying no identification, while riding a vehicle without plates, and that they later left the body of Igmar Alexander at a medical center without providing any explanation of what had happened amounts to evidence that what happened was an extrajudicial execution. Despite the importance of these components of the case, no serious disciplinary investigations were conducted against the participating officers regarding the obvious violation of the minimum standards of police operation. The Court of Appeals of the Criminal Court Circuit of the State of Aragua, in its decision of November 10, 2003 in which it definitively dismissed the charges against the accused, did not address the central issues on which the first instance judge based his decision to convict one of the accused. Thus, for example, the Court did not refer to the contradictions in the statements made by the accused, the evidence supporting the lack of any need for the second shot or the actions of the police officers at the hospital. The reasoning of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Court Circuit is not sufficient to conclude that the State provided a satisfactory explanation regarding the use of force. On the contrary, that court applied grounds for exemption from liability without responding to the evidence of extrajudicial execution. 275. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State failed in its duty to carry out a diligent and timely investigation regarding the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías. This meant that his next of kin had no effective judicial remedy for establishing the truth of what happened, for ensuring the punishment of the masterminds and perpetrators of the crimes, and for securing appropriate reparations. 2. The right to a diligent and reasonably prompt investigation regarding the death of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías 305 I/A Court HR., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4. para. 177; I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 131; y I/A Court HR. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 166. para. 120. 306 I/A Court HR., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4. para. 177; I/A Court HR. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 166. para. 120.