115. They stated that “[w]hen the examining judge […] considered that he did not have competence to hear the case, lawyer Ricardi[, head lawyer of the Criminal Bureau of the Public Legal Assistance Service,] should have contested this decision and did not do so,” and that “[i]t appeared that the investigation conducted by the Chilean Investigation Police delved no further than the public information that existed about the facts.” 116. The representatives stated that, in the context of the ongoing investigation, “Mr. García Lucero did not file a complaint because he considered that [this] investigation […] was neither effective nor appropriate to obtain justice.” They indicated that, in view of the State’s obligation to investigate ex officio, “it cannot be maintained that the complaint […] is essential for the case to go forward.” In addition, they said that “Mr. García Lucero has always been and […] continues to be willing to cooperate with the investigation of his torture, provided that the State ensures the necessary measures to avoid any ‘retraumatization.’” They indicated that “up until [April 21, 2013,] no one had contacted them to request that [Mr. García Lucero] give testimony or for any other reason related to the criminal proceedings.” 117. Lastly, the representatives asserted that the investigation opened ex officio “in October 2011” to investigate the torture of Mr. García Lucero did not exempt the State of responsibility, […] because Chile had not complied with the said obligation within a reasonable time.” 118. The State asserted that: Since democracy was re-established in 1990, it had made a serious and responsible effort to investigate the human rights violations that took place during the military regime. […] It is as a result of this effort […] that, through the administrative channels, Leopoldo García [Lucero] has obtained clarification of the violations of his rights. […] However, the State’s efforts […] have not ceased, which explains why […] an investigation was opened in the criminal jurisdiction in order to prosecute and convict those who are found responsible. However, […] all these actions have been conducted exclusively by the State. 119. The State indicated that, in October 2011, an investigation was opened ex officio, which is still at the “preliminary [stage], awaiting pending measures.” It noted that neither Mr. García Lucero nor his family members, nor his representatives had filed “any complaint, or taken [any] judicial or extrajudicial steps in Chile,” and that the “jurisdictional mechanism” was initiated “ex officio” by the Chilean authorities. Thus, the State indicated that, by resorting to the Inter-American Commission, “the subsidiary nature of the interAmerican system” was disregarded. 120. In addition, the State provided details of the measures taken up until April 21, 2013. 133 It indicated that, after the investigation had been opened, the presumed victim did not collaborate with it and, to the contrary, despite contacts by the authorities, was reticent in contributing to the proceedings, expressly stating that it was not his intention to take part in the criminal proceedings. It also indicated that “the constant obstruction of direct access to the presumed victim by his representatives prevents the measures initiated from leading to results.” Regarding the capacity of the respective entities to investigate cases of torture, it indicated that this case “was not the appropriate forum to make a general analysis of the technical and financial capability of the existing institutions to process cases of torture.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 133 The date corresponds to the presentation of the State’s final written arguments. 38