4 18. In response to the State’s contentions regarding the failure to exhaust recusal proceedings and to appeal against the statutory limitations decision, he states that those are not suitable, appropriate, or effective mechanisms for protecting the legal situation that was violated and that, in the context of the American Convention, they cannot be defined as “remedies,” as has been established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”). Thus, if a remedy is not suitable, it need not be exhausted. 19. With specific reference to recusal proceedings, he maintains that they are not a remedy for preventing or halting an ongoing violation of a fundamental right; instead, they are intended to suspend or terminate a judge’s competence in a specific case. He contends that recusal is a different procedure, filed with another judge from the same area as the one being challenged, who assesses the recusal and refers it to a drawing of lots to assign competence to another judge. When recusal is sought, three judges coexist: the judge of the main proceedings, who is challenged; the judge who substantiates the recusal; and the judge to whom responsibility for the case is transferred. Consequently, trials of that kind do not guarantee speed and dispatch in substantiating the proceedings; the procedure does not automatically or necessarily resolve the undue delay, since there are no guarantees that the new judge will conduct the case in a more efficient way. He adds that Ecuador’s Attorney General has himself stated 5 in some public trials that “recusal is a delaying tactic” and states that in cases involving breaches of human rights, recusal cannot be seen as a suitable means for rectifying and repairing an alleged 6 violation. 20. Regarding an appeal against the decision applying statutory limitations, the petitioner notes that such remedies are filed when one of the parties disagrees with the contents of a judicial decision or for the annulment or modification of a decree or judgment from a lower court. He claims that statutory limitations, pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Civil Code, are triggered by the simple passage of time and a declaration to that effect may be made on an ex officio basis by the competent authority under Article 114 of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code, which states that “statutory limitations may be declared applicable at the request of a party, or on an ex officio basis, necessarily, when the conditions set in this Code are met.” He contends that appealing against the imposition of statutory limitations in the case at hand would have been an unofficial and ineffective remedy, since their activation was caused de iure by the passage of time; hence, an appeal would not have been able to amend any ruling on the merits of the case, but would merely have enabled a higher court to confirm that 7 the proceedings had in fact been extinguished. 21. The petitioner describes the State’s claim that it acted within a reasonable time in spite of the triggering of statutory limitations as a legal impossibility, since the expiration of proceedings is in and of itself a violation of due process and formally indicates that the State has failed to take procedural steps within a reasonable time. He notes that on this point, the Inter-American Court has ruled that a prolonged delay in proceedings may in and of itself constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial. 22. The petitioner claims that Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta is in a situation of extreme vulnerability on account of her medical condition, which prevents her from carrying out any normal physical activity or work. He states that between 2001 and 2005, Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta was treated at different medical facilities and that between 2005 and 2009 she received treatments and surgery to eliminate adherences, an abdominoplasty, as well as other stomach and medical problems. He 5 The petitioner cites: Press report in the newspaper El Universo, May 23, 2009, politics section: “Attorney General Washington Pesantes says the recusal proceedings (filed to separate a judge from hearing a case) brought against the judges in the Filanbanco case could be a tactic to delay the proceedings and prevent a final decision.” Petitioner’s submission, received on September 28, 2009. 6 The petitioner cites Articles 856 to 889 of Ecuador’s Code of Civil Procedure, which describe the grounds and procedure for initiating recusal proceedings. Petitioner’s submission, received on September 28, 2009. 7 The petitioner cites Article 327 of Ecuador’s Code of Civil Procedure and Article 101 of the Criminal Code. Petitioner’s submission, received on September 28, 2009.