102. In addition, the Court takes note of the expert opinion of Laura Pautassi who, in light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, 135 stated that, in situations such as those of the instant case, in which civil compensation is subject to the completion of the criminal proceedings, the obligation to investigate within a reasonable time, “is increased, depending on the health of the person concerned,” since the latter “requires special care [and the duration of the proceedings] violates […] his or her possibility of leading a full life; […] especially when the person cannot work owing to malpractice, [and] is limited in other regards from earning her own income.” 103. The Court also underscores that, since the integrity of an individual is at stake, with the consequence importance of the proceedings for the victims, 136 these proceedings must respect due guarantees and be completed within a reasonable time. This obligation is even more important “in those cases where there is evident harm to the person’s integrity, such as when there is medical malpractice [and, therefore,] the political, administrative and, especially, the judicial authorities must ensure and implement reasonable and timely promptness in deciding the case.” 137 In the present matter, the judicial authority was not effective in guaranteeing the due diligence of the criminal proceedings in light of the State’s positive obligation to ensure that it progressed without delay and within a reasonable time, taking into consideration, also, the violation of the victim’s personal integrity and the fact that obtaining reparation by means of a civil action was subject to the completion of the criminal proceedings (infra para. 120). 104. In a similar situation this Court considered that: The failure to complete the criminal proceedings ha[d] specific repercussions […], because, under the laws of the State, the award of civil reparations for the damage resulting from the illegal criminal act c[ould] be subject to the determination of the offense in criminal proceeding; thus, a first instance judgment had not be delivered in the civil action for redress either. In other words, the absence of justice in the criminal proceedings ha[d] prevented [obtaining] civil compensation for the facts of the […] case.” 138 105. In this regard, the Court considers that the prescription of the criminal proceedings against the doctor who was accused prevented Melba Suárez Peralta from filing actions on civil responsibility for damages, given that, under the Ecuadorian laws in force at the time of the facts, the action to obtain civil reparation was dependent on the corresponding criminal action 139 (infra para. 120). 106. Accordingly, during the hearing, the Court asked the State to provide information on the existence of remedies in relation to extra-contractual responsibility that Melba Suárez 135 Cf. Laudon v. Germany. No. 14635/03. Fifth section. Judgment of 26 April 2007, para. 72; Orzel v. Poland. No. 74816/01. Fourth section. Judgment of 25 June 2003, para. 55, and Inversen v. Denmark. No. 5989/03. Fifth section. Judgment of 28 December 2006, para. 70. 136 Cf. Laudon v. Germany, supra, para. 72. 137 Expert opinion provided by Laura Pautassi during the public hearing. 138 Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, para. 204. 139 Code of Criminal Procedure de Ecuador (1983), supra, article 17: Executed judgments in civil proceedings do not produce the effect of res judicata in the criminal jurisdiction, except for those that decide the offense indicated in the preceding article. Executed judgments in criminal proceedings produce the effect of res judicata as regards the exercise of a civil action, only when they declare that no offense has occurred; or when, if there has been an offense, they declare that the accused is not the guilty party. Therefore, no civil compensation may be claimed until a final guilty verdict in the criminal jurisdiction has been delivered declaring an individual criminally responsible for the offense. 30