could have used to obtain reparation. However, the State did not forward evidence of any available remedy or explain how the civil action could have proceeded despite the failure to decide criminal responsibility. 2. The alleged available remedies 107. In this section, the Court will refer to the victim’s request that the Criminal Judge be fined. Then, the Court will analyze the State’s arguments concerning the remedies that the victim should have filed, namely: (a) the appeal against the decision declaring the prescription of the criminal action; (b) the recusal of the Criminal Judge, and (c) the civil action for damages against the judge of the case. a) The request to fine the Criminal Judge 108. Melba Peralta Mendoza asked the Guayas First Criminal Court to impose a fine on the First Criminal Judge of the province, considering that the prescription of the criminal action came into effect owing to his lack of diligence. In this regard, the decision was that “[t]he request is not admissible […].” 109. In this regard, the Court considers that this decision was not founded, contrary to article 24.13 of the Ecuadorian Constitutions in force at the time of the facts. 140 Thus, the Court has indicated that “the founding of a decision is the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.” Accordingly, “the obligation to found a decision is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) of the Convention to safeguard the right to due process.” 141 b) The appeal against prescription, civil action for reparation, and recusal 110. In its answering brief, the State indicated that the victim could have appealed the decision declaring that the criminal action against Emilio Guerrero had prescribed. 142 It also indicated that the victim could have recused the First Criminal Judge of Guayas based on articles 453 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 871.1.0 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 143 so that the proceedings could have continued without delays. In its final arguments, it argued that, following the decision that declared that the criminal action had prescribed, the 140 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (1998). Article 24 “The following basic guarantees must be observed in order to ensure due process of law, without prejudice to others established in the Constitution, international instruments, laws or jurisprudence: […] 13. The grounds shall be provided for the decisions of the public authorities that affect the individual. These grounds do not exist if the decision does not set out the legal norms or principles on which it was based, and if the pertinence of its application to the facts is not explained. When decided a challenge of a punishment, the situation of the applicant may not be made worse” (file of annexes to the answering brief, folios del 2180 to 2240). 141 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 141. 142 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983. Article 348 established that: “The remedy of appeal is admissible when one of the parties files it in relation to the following decisions: […] 3. Decisions on disqualification and prescription that end the proceedings” (file of annexes to the answering brief, folios 2687 to 2751). 143 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983, supra. Article 453 established that: “All criminal proceedings shall be substantiated pursuant to the procedure established in this Code, except for the legal exceptions. In any case not determined specifically in this Code, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a supplementary law, shall be observed.” Code of Civil Procedure, 1987 (Available at: http://www.ceda.org.ec). Article 871 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at the time of the facts established that: “A judge, of a court or tribunal, may be recused by any of the parties, and must withdraw from hearing the case, for any of the following reasons: […] 10. Failure to conclude the proceedings in three times the duration indicated by the law.” 31