40 146. Regarding this lack of collaboration, it is necessary to highlight that at the public hearing, the representatives indicated that “they were always available to the prosecution[,] collaborating […] permanently, but when they began [a] change of course [in the investigation produced by the change of the prosecutor in charge], then they no longer had confidence in the public prosecutor's office and trust was lost”. In this Court’s opinion, this does not justify the lack of collaboration. The representatives include among the procedures or activities not carried out the omission of the police to forward the results of the expert tests carried out on the various pieces of evidence found in two of the houses where the alleged victims were allegedly kidnapped.227 However, it is clear that on February 13, 2002, the studies that would be carried out on this evidence were scheduled between February 15 and 19. These studies were not fulfilled due to the absence of “the representatives of Messrs. Arrom and Martí,” therefore that evidence was not processed.228 The Court does not have information on the reasons why the presence of the representatives of Messrs. Arrom and Martí was necessary. However, it cannot fail to point out that this absence implied that the studies were not carried out. 147. Likewise, the representatives indicated that the spoken portrait or identikit of the doctor who inspected Martí Méndez's injuries had not been produced.229 However, when the identikits were made, Anuncio Martí indicated that “due to [his] personal impossibility and on the recommendation of [his] lawyer [he would] abstain from making the corresponding identification.”230 In response, Anuncio Martí was informed that “such procedure could not be carried out at a later date, because it is a highly personal act and he may have knowledge of the traits of the person's identi[k]it , carried out by Juan Arrom.”231 By virtue of the foregoing considerations, it is not possible to determine that the alleged omissions indicated by the representatives were contrary to objective guidelines, or manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, these omissions are not enough to generate the international responsibility of the State. 148. Pursuant to Paraguayan legislation, it is appropriate to order the definitive dismissal of a criminal case “when it is evident that the event did not happen, it does not constitute a punishable Nicora (evidence file, fs. 6581 to 6584); Testimonial statement of December 18, 2002, by Florentín Giménez Mendoza (evidence file, fs. 6579 to 6580); Request for witness statement of May 2, 2002 signed by Diego Bertolucci, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, f. 4495); Testimonial statement of Federico Aníbal Emery of May 7, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5674 to 5679); Request for proceedings of February 25, 2002 signed by Diego Bertolucci, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, f. 4485); Testimony of November 18, 2002 by Hugo Adalberto Velázquez Moreno (evidence file, fs. 6494 to 6502); Testimony of November 20, 2002 by Cynthia Paola Lovera Britez (evidence file, fs. 6510 to 6515); Record of the witness statement of Gladys Maubet of April 5, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5334 to 5340); Request for proceedings of June 19, 2002, signed by Ramón Sosa Azuaga, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, f. 4486); Testimonial statement of July 17, 2002, by Blas Ignacio Chamorro López (evidence file, fs. 6196 to 6200); Testimony of July 15, 2002, of Héctor Raúl Marín Peralta (evidence file, fs. 6184 to 6188); Testimonial statement of July 18, 2002, by Antonio Miguel Albino Debernardi Cano (evidence file, fs. 6213 to 6217); Testimonial statement of November 19, 2002 by Sandra Raquel Quiñonez Astigarraga (evidence file, fs. 6504 to 6515); Request reiterating the request of November 11, 2002, signed by Diego Bertolucci, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, f. 4491); Testimony of December 19, 2002 by Víctor Miguel Benítez Cano (evidence file, fs. 6585 to 6588); Request for proceedings of April 11, 2002, signed by Ramón Sosa Azuaga, addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, fs. 4497 to 4499); Record of testimony of Nelson Alderete Santacruz of May 16, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5698 to 5701); Record of testimony of Gustavo Herminio Limenza Ríos of May 21, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5717 to 5719); Testimonial statement of Pablo Ignacio Morínigo of May 21, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5724 to 5726), and Testimonial statement of Roberto González Cuquejo of April 15, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5475 to 5479). 227 Cf. Request for proceedings of October 25, 2002 signed by Diego Bertolucci, addressed to the Public Prosecutor (evidence file, f. 4475). 228 Cf. Criminal report of January 29, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7279 and 7280), and Proceedings record of February 13, 2002, of evidence collected on January 30 and 31, 2002 (evidence file, f. 7296). 229 Cf. Request for proceedings dated April 11, 2002, signed by Ramón Sosa Azuaga (evidence file, fs. 4497 to 4499). 230 Cf. Record of April 11, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5435 to 5436). 231 Cf. Minutes of April 11, 2002 (evidence file, f. 5436).