affidavit, Claudio Valdivia Rivas, Director General of the Public Legal Assistance Service of the Metropolitan Region, stated that “[the] court case […] has faced problems owing to the absence of the direct collaboration and the legal mandate of [Mr.] García Lucero.” 146 José Antonio Ricardi Romero, Head Lawyer of the Criminal Bureau of the Public Legal Assistance Service, made a similar observation in his testimony by affidavit indicating that “in any criminal investigation it is essential to have the collaboration of the party concerned, which has not occurred in this case,” and that he had “filed a complaint based on the facts […] as unofficial agent, in the expectation that [Mr.] García Lucero or his representatives would ratify the complaint; but this has not occurred.” He added that “the [domestic] court [that is hearing the case] authorized [him] to act as unofficial agent on March 20, 2012, establishing a time frame of 90 days for the situation to be ratified by the party concerned.” In this regard, the State, in its answering brief, noted that “under domestic law, the absence of a legal mandate or the collaboration of Leopoldo García Lucero […] may lead to the dismissal of the case.” 135. Furthermore, as documentary evidence, the State provided the Court with a series of e-mails, including one in which the authorities involved in the investigation sent the representatives “a copy of the case file of the proceedings resulting from the complaint filed by the Public Legal Assistance Service” 147 and others in which the authorities indicated the importance of having direct contact with Mr. García Lucero, and that he grant “a power of attorney that would allow them to act on his behalf […] in order to file a complaint for the crimes committed, to request that certain measures be taken, and […] to act as a party in the proceedings, taking the corresponding measures and filing the remedies that may be appropriate.” 148 Also, on December 5, 2011, the Investigation Police indicated the pertinence of “entering into contact with [Mr. García Lucero] in order to obtain further details of the events that had occurred,” and Claudio Valdivia Rivas indicated that, among the domestic actions taken, “are international letters rogatory to obtain the testimony of [Mr.] García Lucero.” The body of evidence includes an official note addressed to the Supreme Court asking it to send letters rogatory to the Inter-American Commission requesting it to provide information on Mr. García Lucero’s domicile (supra para. 88). 136. For their part, the representatives have indicated that the authorities have not communicated with them in order to obtain the testimony of Mr. García Lucero and that, despite his refusal to file a complaint, he is willing to collaborate with them (supra para. 116). 149 137. Based on the above, the Court notes that the State has made the participation of Leopoldo García and his representatives possible, because it has given them access to the investigations and encouraged their intervention, as well as that of Mr. García Lucero directly. However, this does not justify that the failure of Mr. García Lucero to appear in the 146 Testimonial statement of Claudio Valdivia Rivas provided by affidavit (merits file, tome II, fs. 558 to 565). 147 E-mail dated February 7, 2012, sent by Jorge Castro Pereira to “Sandoval Villalba, Clara-Lucia” (file of annexes to the answering brief, f. 2693). 148 E-mail dated January 25, 2012, sent by “José Antonio Ricardi R.” to “Sandoval Villalba, Clara-Lucia” (file of annexes to the answering brief, f. 2701). 149 This also emerges from the documentary evidence presented by the State: in the e-mail of March 30, 2012, sent by “Sandoval-Villalba, Clara,” representative of Mr. García Lucero, to a State official, she indicates, in addition to the refusal of “Leopoldo [García Lucero] and his family” “to litigate” in the proceedings (supra para. 90), that, nevertheless, Leopoldo [García Lucero] and his family are willing to collaborate with judicial authorities in Chile, providing information the latter do not have (for example, providing their testimony), provided that this requirement is necessary and avoids their re-victimization” (e-mail of March 30, 2012, sent by “Sandoval-Villalba, Clara” to Jorge Castro Pereira; file of annexes to the answering brief, f. 2688). 43