violations; in addition, the State has indicated that the acts committed against Mr. García Lucero could fall in the category of crimes against humanity which, as mentioned, the State “must investigate and punish.” 142 127. Taking into account all the above, the State’s delay in opening an investigation was excessive, considering the moment when it became aware of the facts and the date on which it initiated investigative measures. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that, between the time at which the State became aware of the facts, before December 1, 1994 (supra para. 75) and the opening of the proceedings on October 7, 2011, at least 16 years, 10 months and 7 days elapsed. Consequently, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to open an investigation immediately. B.2.2) Regarding humane treatment 128. The Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives allege the violation of the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the Convention because of the suffering caused to Mr. García Lucero owing to the State’s failure to conduct an investigation and the failure to ensure access to justice. In addition, they argued this violation in relation to access to measures of reparation. 143 129. In the case sub judice it has been established that, once the State authorities became aware of the facts related to the “political imprisonment” and torture of Mr. García Lucero, they failed to open an investigation ex officio and immediately, and this was only initiated recently in 2011. This Court considers that the arguments of the representatives and the Commission are directly related to this omission by the State, which was examined in the preceding section in relation to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Consequently, the Court finds that, in this case, it is not in order to rule on other arguments that refer to facts that have already been examined in relation to other treaty-based obligations. 144 Nevertheless, the Court will take note of the situation described when establishing the corresponding reparations for Mr. García Lucero. Furthermore, the Court does not find it pertinent to rule on the alleged violation of Article 5 in relation to access to measures of reparation, because of what it will decide with regard to the domestic proceedings to claim measures or reparation (infra para. 206). B.2.3) Regarding the measures taken in the investigation opened on October 7, 2011 142 In its final written arguments, the State affirmed that, “owing to their severity and characteristics, the facts denounced by [Mr.] García Lucero should be categorized as crimes against humanity.” 143 The Commission argued the violation of humane treatment owing to “the continuous suffering that Mr. García Lucero and his wife endured due to the lack of adequate rehabilitation and treatment, as well as the harm caused by the absence of an investigation and of full reparation for the acts of torture.” In this regard, the representatives also argued the said violation and asserted that Mr. García Lucero was “tortured and that, together with his family, lost everything. They indicated that “[i]n view of these facts, Chile failed to comply with its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish, diligently and within a reasonable time, those responsible for the torture, detention and exile of Leopoldo [García] and its obligation to provide remedies so that [he] and his family could have access to the domestic civil and criminal courts.” They added that, according to the medical report of Dr. Nuria Gené-Cos, the evaluation of Mr. García Lucero’s mental health “indicates that his suffering will continue if, among other matters, justice is not obtained for the events he experienced.” In conclusion, they indicated that, by permitting impunity in this case and by failing to comply with its obligation to ensure that justice functions properly, Chile has caused Mr. García Lucero and his family inhuman suffering. 144 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 230. 41