41 act, or the accused did not participate in it.”232 To order the dismissal, the domestic authorities took into account that the statements of the alleged victims were not corroborated by other evidence. This Court notes that this does not constitute, as the Commission pointed out, a transfer of the burden of proof, but rather an application of the principle of presumption of innocence. 149. Regarding the alleged obstacle to the investigation because of the impossibility of formulating an accusation in the face of a ratified request from the Public Prosecutor regarding the dismissal of the case, the Court notes that the State parties can organize their criminal procedure system, considering their particular needs and conditions, provided that they comply with the purposes and obligations determined in the American Convention.233 In this regard, the fact that the accusation made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office is necessary to continue with the criminal process does not imply a violation of the Convention. 150. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that in this case the investigation does not present manifest omissions that could constitute a violation of the Convention. This Court understands that the definitive dismissal issued in this case implies the extinction of the criminal action with respect to the accused. Although there are no actions in the case file after the definitive dismissal, the Court does not have information on the existence of circumstances not investigated by the State. If new evidence arises regarding them, in accordance with the American Convention, the State continues to be bound to investigate the facts. 151. Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court concludes that the State has complied with its international obligations contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 152. On the other hand, this Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to rule on the alleged lack of independence and impartiality in the investigation. B.3 Conclusion 153. By virtue of the fact that the State i) did not breach its obligation to initiate the investigation ex officio, and ii) carried out the investigation with due diligence, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for a violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. VII-3 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF JUAN ARROM SUHURT AND ANUNCIÓ MARTÍ MENDEZ A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 154. The Commission indicated that in cases of forced disappearance, the suffering of the next of kin derives from the uncertainty on the whereabouts of the disappeared person, which is presumed, as well as the fear due to the risk on their life and personal integrity. Moreover, the Commission highlighted the radical change in the nuclear families of the alleged victims caused by the departure from the country of Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí. Cf. Court decision ordering the dismissal of November 4, 2003 (evidence file, f. 8551). Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 164. 232 233