had harassed Paola. They indicated that in 2004, Bolívar Espín was dismissed for “unexcused leave,” leaving the charges against him of sexual harassment and abuse off the record. 11. They said the civil proceeding, which began on October 13, 2003, exceeded by one year and seven days the duration required by law, and during the proceeding, Ms. Albarracín filed more than 30 briefs asking for the process to move forward. It stated that on June 7, 2005, Bolívar Espín was ordered to pay US$25,000. The sentence was not executed because he was supposedly a fugitive from justice. The petitioners added that even if it were executed, it would not have fully redressed the damage caused to the satisfaction of international standards. They indicated that the file was closed on the case nine years later without the compensation having been paid out. 12. The petitioners stated that the lack of punishment and reparation exposes students to repetition of the facts, and as for Paola's relatives, it has affected their mental and emotional health. 13. They argued that the lack of due diligence in investigating and punishing the acts of sexual violence in this case confirms and perpetuates stereotypes that blame women for the violence of which they are victims, facilitating legal and social impunity for such acts. They stated that Paola's case is representative of a reality of sexual harassment in Ecuador's educational institutions. They added that due to the conduct of its public agents—the vice principal and the school doctor—the Ecuadorian State failed to fulfill its duty to care for Paola, a duty that is reinforced because she was in its custody. Based on this, they emphasized that the State violated Paola's right to security. They also alleged that the State has failed to comply with its obligation to prevent, as it did not establish the laws necessary to protect the girls from acts of violence in schools and to punish those responsible for such acts. 14. Regarding Ecuador's argument that the relationship between the vice principal and Paola was personal and did not entail State responsibility, the petitioners stated that the actions of public officials are the State’s responsibility and that the sexual harassment and abuse perpetrated by the vice principal and the school doctor took place in the course of exercising their public duties. B. The State 15. In arguments presented during the admissibility stage, the State acknowledged that Paola was the victim of the crimes of sexual harassment and statutory rape at the hands of the vice principal, and that he took advantage of his position of authority to “coerce the minor and force (...) upon her a sexual act that resulted in a pregnancy.” 16. During the merits stage, the State underscored that the petitioners’ allegations that Paola’s right to personal security was violated were invalid because the Commission declared this charge inadmissible in Report No. 76/08. 17. The State indicated that at the time of the facts, the existing legal framework was adequate and effective for the exercise of the rights of children and adolescents. It stated that the Political Constitution of 1998 was in force, along with the Code on Minors. It added that the Law against Violence against Women and the Family was passed in 1995, noting that it meets international standards and its regulations were promulgated in 2004. It stated that the Code on Children and Adolescents, which entered into force in 2003, fully recognized the rights of the child, codified sexual violence as abuse, and included the innovative concept of institutional abuse and sexual abuse. It stated that a National Wellbeing Plan is in place that, among other things, includes educational components aimed at eradicating all discrimination. As an example, the State highlighted the Organic Law on Intercultural Education. It also highlighted its National Plan for the Eradication of Gender Violence against Children, Adolescents, and Women. 18. Regarding the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment, the Ecuadorian State indicated that the Political Constitution in force at the time of the facts, the Civil Code, and the Criminal Code protected these rights, for which reason the “IACHR could not rule regarding them.” It added that Ecuador has had a new Constitution since 2008 that reflects the State’s ongoing work to guarantee the rights of all