majority of those intervening (which meant that it was possible that district judges, for example, might have to investigate higher-ranking officers or the colleagues they graduated with).77 73. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the investigations were carried out in the criminal jurisdiction of the police. In fact, three police officers involved in the deaths of Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar were tried in that jurisdiction. 74. The IACHR stresses that, since human rights violations were involved (specifically, violations of the right to life and personal integrity), there is no way the facts may be construed as offenses committed during the course of duties, so that the investigations should have been conducted in the ordinary courts. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that by applying the police criminal jurisdiction in the instant case, the Ecuadorian State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in particular the right to be heard by a competent , independent, and impartial authority, as well as to have adequate and effective remedy, pursuant to Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the next-of-kin of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva (See infra paragraphs 9 and 10). 75. The Commission also underscores the fact that, under the police judicial system two of the police officers were acquitted on the grounds that it was not possible to determine which weapon had been used to fire the bullet that struck Ms. Salazar in the back of her neck. In that regard, the IACHR notes the following irregularities associated with that situation: i) those officers did not submit their official weapons for the corresponding ballistics tests; and ii) there was no expert examination of Mr. Huacón's car. That was acknowledged by the judicial authority, which just took note of that state of affairs without doing anything to correct it in the sense of ordering a resumption of the investigation or proper explanation of what happened and identification of each individual's responsibility. 76. In addition to that, the investigation of officer Carbo, who was summonsed for trial due to "the inference by way of presumption" that he had fired at Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar after the vehicle had come to a halt, apparently is still open more than 22 years after the facts of the case. From the scant information provided on these proceedings and bearing in mind the length of time that has elapsed, the Commission considers that the State failed to show that it conducted them either with due diligence or within a reasonable period of time. The Commission further emphasizes that so far the families of the two victims have not received any clarification of what happened or determination of all responsibilities under the ordinary criminal justice system 77. In light of the above, the Commission considers that to this day the facts of the case have gone unpunished and the State has failed to comply with its duty to conduct an adequate investigation with a view to identifying and, where applicable, punishing the persons responsible for the extrajudicial executions of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar. C. Right to humane treatment (Article 5.1 78 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 78. To start with, the Commission notes that in its admissibility report it did not expressly include Article 5 of the American Convention among the rights that could be considered at the merits stage. Nevertheless, given the whole set of arguments and evidence available at the merits stage, the IACHR deems it pertinent to analyze that part of the facts of the case relating to the suffering endured by Walter Huacón and Mercedes Salazar prior to their deaths, as well as that of the family members of the victims, in light of the right established in Article 5 of the American Convention. The Commission stresses that throughout the admissibility proceedings and the merits stage, the State was aware of the facts affecting Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar, as well as their family members. In light of the above, and applying the iura novit curia principle, I/A Court HR. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016, Series C No. 327, par. 114. 78 Article 5.1: Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 77 11