33 important to mention that the criminal judicial officers are deemed responsible as from the moment they have acquired knowledge of the crime, that is[,] as from 1995, the year in which the Attorney General acquired such knowledge." 96. Given that the State acquired knowledge of Laura Alban’s death on August 3, 1995, it should have instituted investigation proceedings in order to clarify the events as from that date. However, the investigation has not been initiated until fifteen months later, as it has already been proven (supra, para. 81). On this matter, this Court considers that the aforementioned fact indicates that State authorities did not seriously process, with the due guarantees, the complaint filed by Laura Albán’s parents. Therefore, the Court considers that the State has infringed Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention for not having instituted the investigation on Laura Albán’s death in a timely manner. 2) Order issued by the Sixth Chamber of Quito’s Superior Court of Justice 97. As previously stated, the Sixth Chamber decided in its order dated December 13, 1999, to dismiss the criminal action against Dr. Ramiro Montenegro-López on the grounds that such action was time-barred, and to set the case for trial against Dr. Fabián Espinoza-Cuesta (supra, para. 84). The Court shall now refer to the investigations conducted by the State in each of these cases. 98. Ecuador’s Criminal Code establishes that whoever, without the intention to cause the death, willfully administers substances that may severely affect the health or cause the death of another person commits a crime punishable by three to six years of incarceration (Article 456) (supra, note 35). The intention to cause death is presumed if the person administering said substances is either a physician, a pharmacist or a chemist, or if that person possess knowledge of said professions, even if not the holder of the required titles or degrees to practice them (Article 457).102 On the other hand, Article 459 sets forth a type of manslaughter, which punishment is established in Article 460: three months to two years of prison and a fine of fifty to two hundred sucres (supra, note 34). 99. Article 101 of the Criminal Code establishes that actions to prosecute crimes punishable by incarceration are barred by the statute of limitations after ten years and that a five-year statute of limitations applies to crimes punishable by prison (supra note 95). 100. It has been proven that the Pichincha State’s Attorney accused Drs. Montenegro-López and Espinoza-Cuesta before the Sixth Chamber “as perpetrators of the crime defined and punished in [Articles] 456 and 457 of the Criminal Code, considering that, in its decision the Chamber should overturn the Lower court’s decision and issue the corresponding decision setting the case against [the aforementioned physicians] for trial.”103 101. The Court notes that Article 351 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings applicable to the instant case established that judges who had jurisdiction over a 102 Article 457 of the Criminal Code establishes that “[r]egarding the crime established in the previous Article, the intention to cause death shall be presumed if the person administering said substances is either a physician, a pharmacist, or a chemist; or if he or she has knowledge of said professions, even if not a holder of the corresponding title or degree in order to practice them.” 103 Cf. brief of the Pichincha Fifth Criminal Prosecutor, supra note 78.