24 94. In this case, the petitioner claims that although the crime was publicly actionable, the complainant initiated the proceedings and urged the justice authorities to substantiate it to prevent the triggering of statutory limitations. In contrast, the State holds that the complainant failed to pursue the appropriate, effective remedies that its justice system provided. It states that Ecuadorian law offered the possibility of filing for recusal (which would be an effective means to speed up the process if the justice administration had brought it to a halt). 95. Regarding the State’s claim that the complainant was obliged to file for a recusal, the Commission again notes that the case at hand involves the alleged crime of causing personal injuries, which is a publicly actionable offense. Consequently, the State, through the agencies of its justice 121 administration, held sole responsibility for bringing the prosecution and pursuing it until its conclusion; hence, the affected parties in the case were under no obligation to file for a recusal in order to speed up the proceedings. 96. Second, the Commission notes that the affected parties, Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and her mother, actively participated in the investigation and the proceedings and that, in addition to complying with the authorities’ requests, they both filed applications for formalities to be carried out and 122 complaints to protest the delay and to speed up the proceedings, and that those motions were ineffective. Consequently, the Commission believes that in the case at hand, the procedural activity of the affected parties was not a factor behind the delay, nor did it affect the timely substantiation of the proceedings; on the contrary, their procedural activity was diligent. 97. The IACHR reiterates that in order to provide an appropriate resource for remedying a situation about which a complaint is filed, it falls to the State, in its capacity as the bringer of punitive action, to initiate and pursue procedures to identify and, ultimately, prosecute and punish the guilty, 123 following each step in the proceedings until their conclusion. 98. In light of the above analysis on whether the time taken was reasonable, the Commission holds that the violation of the guarantees of due process and reasonable time rendered illusory the remedy afforded by domestic law for protecting the victim against acts that could violate her rights. In consideration of the above analysis, the Commission holds that Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and her mother, Melba Peralta Mendoza, were in a situation of defenselessness and were therefore prevented from obtaining the proper prosecution of the suspected perpetrators of the offense they reported on account of circumstances beyond their control and in spite of their own diligent participation in the proceedings. 99. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State did violate the right of Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and of Melba Peralta Mendoza to a fair trial and to judicial protection, enshrined 121 IACHR, Report No.7/06 Laura Albán Cornejo and others v. Ecuador, February 28, 2006, para. 46. 122 Thus, following the private accusation against Emilio Guerrero, Melba Peralta Mendoza – the victim’s mother – on August 7, 14, and 28, 2000, filed requests for the judge to carry out such formalities as assessing the private accusation, inspecting the place of the facts, ordering an examination and evaluation of Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta, and certifying Emilio Guerrero’s contract; and, on September 18 and 20, October 16, November 14, and December 27, 2000, the complainant asked the judge to issue a warrant for the accused’s arrest and filed a complaint for his delay in processing her documents and in responding to her requests that the place of the facts be inspected. In the year 2001, she requested that the investigation be expanded to cover Wilson Minchala on June 7; on September 13, she requested the closure of the investigation because the allotted time had expired; on September 25, she filed a formal accusation against the two physicians; on October 18, she lodged a complaint for the delay in the proceedings; on October 29, she requested that the investigation be extended to cover Dr. Jenny Bohórquez; on November 13 and 20, she requested that the investigation be closed to prevent further delays in the proceedings; and on November 29, she filed a formal accusation against Jenny Bohórquez. In 2002, on June 6 the complainant challenged the prosecutor’s ruling voiding the proceedings, holding it to be contrary to law, and, on September 23, she filed a complaint about the amount at which Emilio Guerrero’s bail had been set. In 2005, the complainant filed a complaint regarding the delays in the proceedings and the failure to issue prompt rulings on June 28; and on August 23 and September 5 and 12, 2005, she requested that the public judgment hearing be held, even though statutory limitations had been triggered on August 16, 2005. 123 IACHR, Report No. 27/99, Case 11.697, Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto Giralt, March 9, 1999, para. 40.