99 Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 163. Article 25 of the American Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 164. In view of what the Court has deemed proven with respect to the right to fair trial and judicial protection, the analysis of Articles 8 and 25 will address the following topics: a) gathering of evidence at the scene of the crime; b) alteration and concealment of the report on the police investigation; c) manipulation of the evidence supplied by the Presidential General Staff and the Ministry of National Defense; d) official secret; e) murder of a police investigator; harassment and threats against legal operators, police investigators, members of the Myrna Mack Foundation and of AVANCSO and the next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang; f) lack of diligence of the judges in the criminal proceeding; and g) reasonable term. 165. Before discussing each of the aforementioned points, let us recall what the CEH stated regarding the Myrna Mack Chang case: […] this case clearly illustrates the grave flaws and shortcomings of actions by the courts, despite multiple and persistent procedural actions by the private prosecutor and private accuser. It also reveals the existence of subterraneous mechanisms of impunity that sabotage the criminal investigation and obstruct enforcement of the law, by altering the scene of the crime, obstructing the criminal investigation, implementing overt and covert intimidation plans against judges, witnesses, prosecutors and investigators –to the point of killing police investigator José Mérida- and official acts to cover up and arbitrarily invoke official secret. But the case also reveals the possibilities that reopen when the next of kin of the victim, as Helen Mack did, resolutely exercise their right to judicial action and attempt to overcome the intimidations, the covering up of the human rights violations, and abusive resort to official secret.254 a) Gathering of evidence at the scene of the crime 166. The Court has corroborated that once the body was found, the police abstained from adequately protecting the scene of the crime, cleaned the victim’s nails, and discarded the content of the scrapings, and alleged that it did not record or 254 Cf. report by the Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, “Guatemala, memoria del silencio” in June, 1999, volume VI, page 244 (file with annexes to the application, annex 42, leaf 793).