4. Conclusion 116. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that, in spite of the fact that at the time of this writing two people have been convicted for the crime, the domestic authorities did not act with due diligence in terms of a thoroughgoing investigation of the perpetrators of the deeds or in investigating the motive for Mr. García Valle's murder and its instigators, the latter being key elements in the clarification of crimes such as the one in this case, particularly when it may have concerned an act of reprisal and intimidation in response to work in defense of human rights. The Commission also concludes that Mr. García Valle’s family was not afforded a simple and effective recourse against the dismissal of the alleged instigators and that the State has infringed the reasonable-time guarantee. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State's violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection envisaged in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Luisa Acosta, Ana María Vergara Acosta, Álvaro Arístides Vergara Acosta, Leonor del Carmen Valle de García, and Rodolfo García Solari. B. Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 5 thereof), with respect to the proceedings instituted against Mrs. Acosta 117. As the established facts show, three proceedings—two of them of a criminal nature—were instituted against Mrs. Acosta: (a) the criminal investigation for alleged abetment (encubrimiento) in the investigation of Mr. García Valle murder; (b) the criminal investigation for the crimes of "false testimony and false accusation"; and (c) the civil suit for damages. The Commission will analyze below if in the context of the proceedings brought against Mrs. Acosta violations occurred of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. The Commission will examine each of these proceedings individually before pronouncing on the petitioners' submission that they constituted a means to harass or intimidate Mrs. Acosta for her activities as a human rights defender. 1. The criminal investigation for alleged abetment in the investigation of Mr. García Valle murder 118. The Commission recalls that this proceeding was initiated based on claims made by Mr. Martínez in his statement in the preliminary proceeding. According to those claims Mrs. Acosta had withheld information about the identity or location of one of the individuals alleged to have killed her husband. In spite of the fact that it may be clearly deduced from Mrs. Acosta's statement that such a claim was untrue, the District Criminal Court ordered that she be investigated. The Commission would like to note that the lack of grounds for opening that investigation was confirmed by several investigative officials. In particular, the Assistant Prosecutor in Managua said that Mrs. Acosta was being investigated in order to frighten her,213 while the Assistant Prosecutor in the RAAS said that her change of status from aggrieved party to suspect was “highly irregular" and “a juridical absurdity.”214 119. As regards the right to be assisted by legal counsel, recognized in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, the Commission notes that owing to the fact that the power of attorney by which Mrs. Acosta's legal representative requested leave to intervene on her behalf in the proceeding as a person under investigation and brought an accusation against Iván Argüello was “very broad” and not “extraordinary,” the judge presiding in the case refused to admit that accusation. Furthermore, the record shows that in its order the court did not address the legal representative's request to intervene in the criminal proceeding as Mrs. Acosta's counsel or appoint a public defender for her. The Commission finds that this action contrasts with 213Appendix 134. Response of the Assistant Prosecutor in Managua to the grievances raised by the applicant in the appeal for annulment, File 2019-2004, Appeal for Annulment to the Supreme Court of Justice. Trial court file No. 110-02, folios 80-86. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 214Appendix 100. Second hearing writ (Escrito de segundas vistas] to the District Civil and Criminal Court. of the In. of Bluefields, December 24, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folios 268-270. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007.