6 38. As for the first element, the petitioners observe that this case did not demand largescale or extensive investigation; all that was required was the willingness of the administration of justice and the prosecution to carry the case through to completion and ascertain the facts. Specifically they point out that the identity of the party responsible for the alleged victim’s death was discovered on the very day the events occurred; thus, the perpetrator’s identification was not a problem for the State. They add that from their first encounter with the administration of justice in the form of the private complaint, the victim’s next of kin clearly described how the events occurred and the identity of the police officer responsible for the death of José Luis García Ibarra. As for the second element to consider the petitioners observe that nothing in the record suggests that the conduct of José Luis García Ibarra’s family was not what it should have been as a party to the proceedings; all the family did was to file petitions asking that evidence be gathered to solve the case. The petitioners argue that nothing in the record suggests that the alleged victim’s next of kin did anything to encumber the processing of the case or that they engaged in dilatory tactics. As for the third element, the petitioners contend that it has been demonstrated that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the law and that there were excessive delays attributable to the state authorities presiding over the case. 39. The petitioners also underscore the fact that in its ruling of February 26, 2002, the Supreme Court itself noted the irregularities in the case, including a lower-court ruling that the Supreme Court labeled sui generis as it was based on three differing findings. The petitioners state that the Supreme Court even gave instructions to have the Council of the Judiciary examine the conduct of the members of the Criminal Court, especially one of its members who did not have the authority to issue an opinion pertaining to jurisdiction at this stage. On this last point, the petitioners indicate that one year and five months before the member of the court issued his finding, that the police justice system had jurisdiction over this case, this issue had already been settled in favor of the ordinary courts. According to the petitioners, this demonstrates that the member in question failed to do a careful review of the case file. 40. The petitioners observe that the Supreme Court pointed to other irregularities, among them the fact that the Esmeraldas Superior Court took four years to issue its finding on the appeal for the annulment of the verdict. They also allege that the Public Prosecutor’s Office mistakenly filed its appeal with the Supreme Court. 41. The petitioners note that because the State had possession of the evidence and because murder is a crime that the State must prosecute ex officio, it was the State’s obligation to prosecute the legal case and provide all the information necessary to determine guilt. They further observe that the delay in rendering a final judgment was due to the fact that the State did not practice the due diligence or devote the attention to the case, as it was its duty. 42. As for the State’s argument that there was no violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, the petitioners contend that the victim’s next of kin did not have an adequate and effective remedy. They emphasize the fact that in its February 26, 2002 ruling the Supreme Court established that the deficient investigation made it impossible to ascertain the procedural truth, generating confusion concerning the facts and the crime committed, all for the purpose of keeping the defendant’s sentence to just 18 months. The petitioners describe the sentence as inadequate and completely unsuited to the nature of the crime, as this was the murder of an adolescent. The petitioners observe that even in cases involving “ordinary murders” the courts sentence the guilty parties to up to 16 years.