proceedings, by means of a complaint or any other action, would result in the closure of the proceedings, because this runs counter to the State’s obligation to conduct the investigation ex officio. This does not preclude taking into account that, during an investigation into acts of torture, it is essential that the authorities are in communication with the victim. Thus, the Court recalls that, during the investigation of facts that include possible acts of torture, it is relevant that the authorities concerned obtain information from the victim’s testimony and from the physical and psychological forensic examinations performed on him or her. 150 Notwithstanding the above-mentioned actions of the State, according to the evidence provided to the Court, there is no record that Mr. García Lucero’s testimony has been obtained or that any forensic examinations have been performed. These actions are pending in the context of the ongoing investigation. B.2.4) Conclusion 138. Consequently, owing to the State’s excessive delay in opening an investigation following the date on which it became aware of the acts of torture, that is prior to December 1, 1994 (supra paras. 75, 126 and 127), this Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument and to the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Leopoldo García Lucero. 139. Furthermore, without taking into account the measures pending implementation in the investigation that is underway, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court does not find that the investigation opened on October 7, 2011, has been conducted in a way that gives rise to the State’s international responsibility for infringing the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection based on the failure to observe standards of due diligence. 140. Given that the investigation of the facts is a State obligation that must be undertaken ex officio (supra para. 122) and that it relates to acts that have adversely affected Mr. García Lucero, and also that he continues to have the possibility of exercising his rights, 151 the Court does not find that find that the rights of Mr. García Lucero’s family members have been violated. 141. Owing to the determinations made above, the Court finds it unnecessary to examine the arguments relating to the failure to implement domestic measures within a reasonable time. 150 The Court notes that “when investigating acts of torture, it is important that the competent authorities take into consideration the international standards for documenting and interpreting the elements of forensic evidence concerning the perpetration of acts of torture and, particularly, those defined in the “Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” [(United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), New York and Geneva, 2001)]. Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, supra, para. 121. The actions established in the Protocol include “to obtain as much […] information as possible through the testimony of the alleged victim,” through the respective interview. Also, as the United Nations Committee against Torture has pointed out, “[t]he investigation should include as a standard measure an independent physical and psychological forensic examination as provided for in the Istanbul Protocol” (Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 3 (2012). Implementation of article 14 by States parties. Doc. CAT/C/GC/3. Distr. General 13 December 2012, para. 25). 151 Cf. Similarly, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 281. 44