3 13. They indicate that the petitioners filed a motion for appeal and subsequently another motion of complaint for refusal to allow the appeal [recurso de hecho]. They report that the latter was also denied by the same judge, in violation of the law that establishes that such a motion must be reviewed by a higher court judge. They allege that after that decision was handed down, they filed a constitutional amparo motion with the Contentious Administrative Court of Guayaquil, which was denied on March 11, 1998. They report that said decision was appealed to the Constitutional Court, which took over six months of deliberation before confirming the lower court decision on September 28, 1998. 14. They maintain that the proceedings were transferred to the Second Court of the Fourth District of the National Police in Guayaquil, which, after completing the required formalities and the preliminary and intermediate stages of the proceedings, issued a substantiated ruling convicting two members of the police and acquitting the other three accused, on the grounds that they did not participate in any way in the crime. 15. They report that after the oral argument stage on September 7, 2000, the criminal court sentenced them to a three-year prison term. They indicate that said ruling was appealed to the Second District Court of Guayaquil, which after hearing the appeal in June 2001, upheld the conviction judgment and amended the sentence to eight years in prison for preterintentional homicide [manslaughter]. They indicate that said judgment was challenged in the National Police Court of Justice, which upheld the prior judgment of December 4, 2001. They report that on May 14, 2002, orders were issued for the arrest and imprisonment of the convicted persons, and their transfer to the prison in Guayaquil. They allege that the convicted police officers subsequently filed an appeal for review with the same Court. 16. The petitioners indicate that, according to the document issued by the Personnel Department of the National Police on March 31, 2003, the prisoners remain at large, and the appeal for review is still pending decision with the National Police Court of Justice; thus, the accused are in a transitional situation. They contend that the State did not capture the responsible parties, in other words it did not comply with the judgment rendered by the domestic legal system, and that the crime remains unpunished. Therefore, they consider that the State is in violation of Article 25 of the American Convention. 17. As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners allege that the police criminal jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing human rights violations, and so they are not required to exhaust the remedies of that jurisdiction. Moreover, they believe that the refusal of the agents to arrest the responsible parties constitutes a denial of justice, and that there was an unwarranted delay of six years before the final judgment was handed down in the police proceeding; hence, the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies apply. 18. The petitioners allege that the State violated the right to humane treatment of Aníbal Aguas Acosta, as established in Article 5 of the American Convention, and that this violation is based on the various injuries present on the head, legs, and arms, as well as on the genitals of the victim, indicating that the agents subjected him to torture. They further argue that during the proceedings conducted, the responsibility of State agents for the death of Aníbal Aguas Acosta was proven; hence, the State is responsible for violation of Article 4 of the Convention. 19. The petitioners contend that the police courts are not an impartial jurisdiction, since they are made up of police on active duty subject to a line of authority. Consequently, the State has violated Article 8 of the American Convention.