-2386. According to the representatives, the Ministry of Defense did deposit the rest of the reparations ordered on July 23, 2008 (supra paras. 79 and 80) for the legal heirs of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, as well as for Mr. Bejarano Laura, before July 2011.109 87. Therefore, the State paid the totality of the compensation ordered by the court. VIII. MERITS 88. With regard to the alleged violations of the rights recognized by the Convention in the present case, the Court will analyze: 1) the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection of the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, as well as those of Mr. Bejarano Laura; 2) the right to life of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, and the right to personal integrity of Mr. Bejarano Laura; 3) The right to personal integrity of the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta, Ms. Pérez Chávez and the family members of Mr. Bejarano Laura, and 4) the duty to adapt the domestic law. VIII-1. THE RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 89. The Commission alleged that the investigation carried out at the domestic level was not completed within a reasonable time. With regard to the domestic court hearing, the Commission pointed out that the Office of the Prosecutor never requested the rifles of the other 15 members of the patrol; never subjected the rifles to a parafin test; never reconstructed the scene of the crime or made a forensic planimetry. It added that the accused was not placed at the disposal of the Office of the Prosecutor by the Army, although he was being held in military installations and was subject to an arrest warrant. The Commission also claimed that it was proved that for seven years (from December 12, 1995 to January 21, 2003, date on which the case file was removed from the archive) the next of kin of the alleged victims did not have an effective recourse to guarantee their rights due to the application of Amnesty Laws Nos. 26.492 and 26.479, which was a factor in the delay in the investigations. With regard to the period from the removal of the case from the archive to the reaffirmation of the conviction, the Commission argued that the investigation of the Office of the Prosecutor displayed a lack of interest.110 In addition, it indicated that, since the removal of the case from the archive, no effort had been made to locate Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo and it was not until two years later that the authorities discovered that he was in prison for the commission of a different crime. 90. The representatives argued that there was an infringement of the right to a “natural judge” and to due process of law, in relation to the right to access to justice of the victims and their family members, due to the assumption of the case by the military court, which was “manifestly incompetent” to hear it. They also maintained that the investigation had not been Informed by the petitioners in their communication of July 27, 2011. Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Merits Report 77/12, Tarazona Arrieta et al. November 8, 2012, para. 120 (evidence file, folio 33). 109 Specifically, it pointed out that the Office of the Prosecutor requested on four occasions an extension of the period of committal proceedings and that when that Office presented the complaint, it had not pursued procedures different than those before the case was closed. 110