- 102 - that were conducted did not comply with the requirements in cases of victims of sexual violence and/or torture; (iii) gynecological examinations were not performed and the Istanbul Protocol was not applied immediately; (iv) gynecological care was not provided, even though the women had reported being victims of sexual violence; (v) the women were subjected unnecessarily to revictimizing appraisals; (vi) the failure to take other measures was detrimental to the investigation, and (vii) the items of evidence submitted by the victims were not processed. 285. It should be added that the Court has no evidence that these initial errors were rectified by subsequent actions that would have resulted in determination of the facts and those responsible. To the contrary, the Court notes that the initial lack of diligence caused significant prejudice to the subsequent investigations. This is revealed by the fact that, owing to the evidentiary difficulties, the State had to resort to investigating the responsibility by omission of the police agents owing to the acts of torture committed against the women and, to date, it has not been possible to identify the perpetrators of those crimes. Thus, even though progress has been made in the said criminal actions based on omissions, they are not clarifying all the crimes, because the initial flaws in the investigation in relation to gathering evidence has resulted in the impossibility of identifying all the perpetrators. Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s argument that the said initial flaws have been rectified is not admissible. B.1.2 Presumed obstruction of the inquiries and access to the case files by the Public Prosecution Service 286. The Commission and the representatives alleged that, by ordering the confidentiality of preliminary inquiry 466/2006, the investigation and clarification of the facts at the state level were obstructed. The representatives also considered that the investigation had been obstructed at the federal level, because “despite the pro-active procedural activity of the women to ensure that the facts were investigated, and the evidence of the perpetration of crimes of violence against women by and linked to actions by federal agents,” the FEVIM waived jurisdiction in favor of the PGJEM. Lastly, the representatives indicated that “access to the case file and, in general, to details of the investigation were obstructed on various occasions,” explaining that they were refused copies of the preliminary inquiry at the federal level, as well as access to the complete file of the state inquiry. For its part, the State indicated that there was no obstruction, because the waiver of jurisdiction was “in keeping with the law, authorized by the ranking superior [...] and taking into consideration the body of evidence,” and indicated that it had made the case file available to the victims when they requested this. 287. This Court has understood that, among other matters, the following constitute obstacles to the progress of an investigation: coercion, intimidation or threats to witnesses, investigators or judges aimed at hindering the process, avoiding the clarification of the facts, and concealing those responsible for them; 384 irregularities and unjustified delays resulting from the competent authorities’ lack of willingness and commitment to conduct the respective criminal proceedings; 385 lack of access of the victims, their next of kin or their representatives to the investigations and Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 193, Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 170, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 107, Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 224, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 145. 384 385 116. Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para.