proceeding occurred due to the judges’ failure to process the case in a timely manner. 8 That claim was denied on November 10, 2005. 18. The petitioner alleges that although the unlawful act was committed by a private physician in a private clinic, the agents of the State responsible for the administration of justice are accountable for the failure to prosecute those responsible for the medical malpractice that damaged the health of Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta. The petitioner argues that the actions and omissions of the administrators of justice caused the operation of the statute of limitations and fostered impunity and the concealment of the crime committed by private individuals.9 19. The petitioner alleges that more than five years passed between the date when the Order to Open the Judicial Process was issued and the summons to appear at the full trial; that the First Judge for Criminal Matters improperly held up the process for more than 16 months; and that during that period no actions were taken toward prosecuting the case despite the fact that there was evidence of liability on the part of the accused. The petitioner alleges that despite the existing evidence, in the case operated the statute of limitations in a definite manner due to unwarranted delay because of the acts and omissions of the judge and despite the requests for speediness filed by the complainant in the process. The petitioner specifically alleges that the preliminary proceeding was initiated on August 16, 2000 and was closed on November 27, 2001, which means that it took more than three times the maximum time established in the procedural standards, which is six months. The petitioner alleges that this is in addition to the delay between the order issuing the summons to appear at the full trial, issued on February 17, 2003, and the appeals ruling, dated June 17, 2004, as well as the delay in establishing bail. 20. As a result, the petitioner alleges that the Ecuadorean State has violated its obligation to respect judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection as they relate to the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta. 21. Regarding the admissibility of the complaint, the petitioner alleges that in accordance with the Criminal Procedures Code, the State has the procedural burden of pursuing the case ex officio at all times.10 The petitioner alleges that the final result of the criminal process depended on the speediness of its handling by the judges and the result would have been different if the procedural deadlines had been honored. In contrast, the petitioner states that the judges contributed to the unwarranted delay of justice, which made the Ecuadorean State an accomplice in the impunity and responsible for human rights violations. 22. Regarding the State’s allegation about the failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see B below), the petitioner indicates that the recusal proceeding, the oral summary proceeding, the appeal, and the action for damages and injury are not suitable, appropriate, or effective remedies for protecting the legal right that has been violated and cannot be defined as “remedies” in the context of the American Convention. 23. Regarding recusal, the petitioner alleges that it is not a suitable remedy because it is not designed to prevent or impede the violation of a human right but rather to suspend or terminate the competence of the judge in a case. Regarding the oral summary proceeding as a 8 The petitioner states that this is established in Article 110 of the Ecuadoran Penal Code. “if lapse occurred due to the judges’ failure to process the case in a timely manner, those judges shall be punished by the superior judge with a fine of forty-four to four hundred and seven United States dollars, leaving open the issue of action for damages and injury that may be admissible against those officials in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure”. Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XXIII. 9 The petitioner cites IACHR admissibility report 69/02 regarding Laura Albán Cornejo as part of its argument. Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XXXIII. 10 The petitioner states that Art. 14 of the Old Criminal Procedures Code established that “criminal action is public in nature. In general, it shall be conducted ex officio, and individual accusations may be admitted, but in the cases indicated in Art. 428 of this Code criminal action shall be carried out through individual accusation.” Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XXXIII. 4