(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) in the absence of the investigation file, the Court was not in a position “to know when and how the evidence was obtained”; there were a “number of significant omissions in the official pre-trial investigation” relating to the search of the alleged scene of torture and lack of questioning of potential witnesses; “a number of investigative measures were taken very belatedly,” such as the report on the forensic medical examination of Mikheyev, which was only produced more than five weeks after the alleged torture; a time lapse of two years for holding an identification parade; questioning of witnesses more than two years after the incident; carrying out a psychiatric examination after more than two years; the loss of “precious time” as a result of repeated discontinuance of investigations following orders to reopen proceedings, often on “almost identical evidence and reasoning.”100 The reasoning of the Court yields several important findings: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Reliable information of investigative steps taken has to be provided by the state party to show that investigations met the required standard; Omissions or the failure to take certain investigative measures do not strictly speaking constitute delays but simple inaction. However, where investigations are ongoing, it is often impossible to distinguish between permanent inaction and delays; The reasoning of the Court shows the close link between prompt and effective investigations according to which national authorities “must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence etc…”101 Delays due to procedures relating to the opening and discontinuance of proceedings, and lack of compliance therewith can also constitute violations. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights elaborated on the ‘respect for the principle of reasonable time’ in the case of Serrano-Cruz Sisters where proceedings had “remained at the investigation stage for approximately 7 years and 10 months…”102 The Court: “has established that three elements should be taken into account in determining whether the time in which proceedings was conducted was reasonable [in terms of Article 8 (1) of the American Convention]: a) the complexity of the case; b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and c) the conduct of the judicial authorities.”103 In the case of Maritza Urrutia (Guatemala), an investigation into the alleged abduction and torture was opened in August 1992. The victim was summoned to appear through her father who was, however, not in contact with her. Upon her failure to appear, the national authorities did not initiate a criminal investigation. The Office of the Attorney General 100 Mikheyev v. Russia, paras.111 et seq. 101 Ibid., para.108. 102 Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, para.68. 103 Ibid., para.67. Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Merits), para.63; 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, paras.189 et seq; Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para.171and Ximenez-Lopez v. Brazil, paras.196 et seq. 22