individuals, with special emphasis on children and adolescents. It stated that Ms. Petita Albarracín was able to access the various legal mechanisms available to her domestically without any discrimination and with equal protection. Thus, she was able to file a criminal complaint, file a suit for moral damages, and bring an administrative proceeding against Mr. Bolívar Espín. It argues that the fact that the processes had not concluded to the petitioner’s liking does not mean her rights have been violated. 19. The State argued it had not committed any action or omission for which it would be internationally responsible because the relationship was between private parties and the Ecuadorian State’s only involvement came in its efficient and effective administration of justice. Regarding medical care, the State indicated that school authorities cannot provide the same care as a clinic in a situation as serious as the poisoning of a person. It said that the petitioner’s analysis of the facts places a disproportionate burden on the school. 20. The State indicated with regard to the criminal process that after the complaint was filed, preliminary inquiries were conducted and the prosecutor began the preliminary investigation stage. On December 16, 2003, the High Court of Justice ordered that the accused be placed in pretrial detention. The State added that in October 2003, the prosecutor issued charges for the crime of sexual harassment, and in August 2004, the order was issued to begin the trial of the vice principal. It stated that on September 1, 2005, the High Court of Justice changed the charge to aggravated statutory rape because “the aggravating factors were present in the infraction, as it led to the death of the minor.” It stated that on September 18, 2008, prescription was triggered for the criminal action. It concluded that this process respected all rights and that for close on three years, since a ruling was issued on an appeal, neither Ms. Petita Albarracín nor her representatives have filed any petition before the court, thus demonstrating their lack of interest. 21. With regard to the civil suit for nonpecuniary damages brought by Paola’s mother, the State indicated that the Settlement Board met on May 6, 2004, and that on June 7, 2005, the court issued a judgment ordering the defendant to pay US$25,000. It added that the resolution was appealed by Mr. Bolívar Espín on June 10, 2005, and almost one year later, on May 15, 2006, Ms. Albarracín also appealed the ruling. The State reported that Ms. Albarracín did not activate the process for six years, leading to the case being closed on July 14, 2012, after it was declared abandoned. Should it be found internationally responsible, the State asked the Commission to find that it would not be able to provide nonpecuniary damages, as the petitioner had rejected this in the domestic jurisdiction. 22. Regarding the administrative process, the State held that Paola’s mother filed a complaint for sexual harassment with the Office of the Regional Deputy Secretary for Education. The complaint was remitted to the Guayas Provincial Office of Education (hereinafter the “Provincial Office”), which assembled a special subcommittee of superintendents to conduct an exhaustive investigation of the facts alleged, reach an administrative decision, and sanction the vice principal, in keeping with current law. III. ESTABLISHED FACTS A. Prior consideration regarding the public hearing on October 19, 2015 23. In a communication sent on September 18, 2015, the Commission called the State and the petitioner to a public hearing, to be held on October 19 that year. On October 6, the IACHR sent a follow-up communication to both parties. In messages dated October 12 and 15, the State informed the Commission that it had not received the letter calling the hearing, asked that the hearing be rescheduled for the next period of sessions, and indicated that should the Commission decide not to reschedule it, the State would be forced not to attend. In communications dated October 14 and 17, the Commission informed the State that it had the properly-verified evidence to demonstrate that the letter calling the hearing had been sent in a timely manner and reiterated that it would indeed be held. The State did not attend. In a communication dated November 6, 2015, the State alleged that because it had not received the communication calling the hearing in a timely manner, the State had not been able to exercise its right to defense. Because of this, it asked that everything that had taken place subsequent to the calling of the hearing be declared invalid.