suitable remedy (see B below), the petitioner indicates that following the preceding logic, this is not a judicial remedy, but rather a specific proceeding the purpose of which is to settle damages and injury already determined in a prior civil or criminal proceeding. The petitioner states that the complaints subject to oral summary proceedings are those for payment of interest, benefits, damages, and injuries, 11 and that in this case this was not determined, since the judge and the tribunal did not hear the proceeding and unjustifiably delayed it up to the point when it was time barred. Regarding the State’s allegation regarding the failure to exhaust suit for damages and injury (see B below), the petitioner responds that the purpose of that action is not to remedy or impede impunity for the violation of a fundamental right, so it would not be a suitable and effective method for impeding, suspending, or repairing the violation of a right.12 24. With respect to the State’s allegation regarding the failure to exhaust the remedy of appeal (see B below), the petitioner responds that this remedy is used to appeal a decision when someone disagrees with the content of that decision.13 The petitioner states that the State’s assertion to the effect that the operation of the statute of limitations could be appealed is groundless in that the appeal would have been ineffective since the statute of limitations operated de jure given the passage of time and the only purpose of the appeal would be to have the Superior Court confirm that the statute of limitations had already operated. 25. The petitioner also alleges that in the instant case it was not appropriate to exhaust the cassation (recurso de casación) in that the function of that remedy is to review the “improper application of rules,” which was not relevant to the proceeding under review. The petitioner states that “ A remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective [] for example, when practice has shown its ineffectiveness: when the Judicial Power lacks the necessary independence to render impartial decisions or the means to carry out its judgments.”14 B. The State 26. In response to the petitioner’s complaint, the State alleges the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In this regard, in response to the petitioner’s allegation regarding the failure to honor the obligation to investigate the facts and prosecute those responsible within a reasonable period of time, the State alleges that Mrs. Melba Suárez Peralta had the opportunity to initiate a recusal proceeding.15 It alleges that the Inter-American Court has declared that remedies “suitable to address an infringement of a legal right” must be exhausted and that recusal could be appropriate and effective. 16 27. In addition, the State alleges that the appeal to the Superior Court of Guayaquil against the operation of the statute of limitations ordered by the First Tribunal for Criminal Matters of 11 The petitioner cites Article 843 of the Ecuadoran Code of Civil Procedure. 12 Petitioner’s brief received November 21, 2007. 13 The petitioner cites: “The appeal is the measure the law provides to the parties to have a judicial decision changed or rendered without effect. The judge may make a mistake or act deliberately outside of procedural standards in handling cases, which affects the formal part; []”. Juan Falconí Puig, Código de Procedimiento Civil Comentado. Edino 1991, Guayaquil, Ecuador. Petitioner’s brief received November 21, 2007. 14 The petitioner cites the I/A Court HR, Advisory Opinion 9/87 on Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, of October 6, 1987. Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XXXIII. 15 The recusal proceeding is provided under Article 856(10) of the Code of Civil Procedure. “A judge, whether in a tribunal or court, may be recused by either of the parties and must refrain from hearing the case for any of the following reasons: 10. No handling the proceeding within three times the time period indicated.” Note No. 4-2-210/06 of July 20, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 025898 of June 30, 2006. In addition, the State indicates that recusal is provided for under Article 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Note No. 4-2-281/07 received on November 29, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 006206, of November 19, 2007. 16 The State cites the I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment on the Merits, para. 64. Note No. 4-2210/06 of July 20, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 025898, dated June 30, 2006. 5