34 Judge ordered that the inspection be undertaken on July 5, 1999.87 However, the case file does not reveal whether this inspection was ever carried out by state authorities. 112. The State’s obligation to carry out investigations with due diligence includes the obligation of all state authorities to collaborate in the gathering of evidence so that the objectives of an investigation may be achieved. The authority in charge of the investigation must ensure that all necessary investigative steps are undertaken and must take appropriate action, in accordance with domestic legislation, when this does not occur. At the same time, all other state authorities must collaborate with the examining judge and abstain from acts that obstruct the investigative process. Acts of this nature exist in the present case as a result of the investigation regarding the inspection of the books containing the “arrivals and departures” records of the personnel of the San Benito Battalion of the extinct National Police. 113. This Tribunal finds that, when the Third Trial Court ordered the inspection of records of the San Benito Battalion of the extinct National Police in order to further the investigation necessary to clarify the events (supra para. 87 and 111), state authorities of the Ministry of National Defense and those of the Historical Archive, located at the Navy Base, had the obligation to collaborate in a diligent and effective fashion with the investigation set forth by the trial judge. As a result, the State did not comply with the mentioned obligation by not permitting access to the books containing the “arrivals and departures” personnel records of the San Benito Battalion of the extinct National Police in June of 1994. 114. Regarding the prosecutorial investigation No. 34-00-03 (supra para. 92 to 94), the Court observes that José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto lodged a complaint on June 6, 2003 before the Public Prosecutors Office, in which they stated that they “did not know the identities of the intellectual authors of the homicide of [their] son, [but] affirme[d] that they suspect[ed] Mauricio Ernesto Vargas Valdés [and] Roberto Hernán Puente Rivas” and indicated that no one had been found guilty with respect to the individual who drove José Raúl Argueta Rivas and Julio Ismael Ortiz Díaz to and from the scene of the homicide. On June 16, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General opened prosecutorial investigation No. 34-00-03 (supra para. 92) in relation to the homicide of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto. There is no evidence of procedural action in the prosecutor’s file subsequent to June 2004; in other words, to date, the investigation remains pending since that date. 115. For the Court, the lack of state response is a determinative element when evaluating whether a breach of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention has occurred, because it is directly related to the principle of effectiveness that should permeate the development of such an investigation. In this way, upon receiving a criminal complaint, the State should undertake a serious and impartial investigation, but also should resolve the case in a reasonable time in a manner that reaches the merits of the circumstances alleged. 116. Therefore, regarding the investigation carried out by the authorities in relation with the homicide of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto, the Court concludes that 87 Cf. Document issued on June 28, 1999 by the Third Trial Court of San Salvador criminal proceedings number 110/98 (exhibits to the application, exhibit 2, volume 6, page 2265).