6 suspend proceedings and “provide an opportunity for ratification of the order to invoke statutory 11 limitations.” It states that the petitioner’s argument that he did not file for this remedy since the Superior Court of Justice would have ratified the statutory limitations indicates beforehand that the Court’s ruling would have been unfavorable. It adds that the remedy would have been resolved swiftly, since if it were not settled within 15 days a request could have been lodged for fines to be imposed on the judges 12 responsible for the delay. 29. Ecuador holds that Melba Peralta Mendoza “was able to participate in the criminal proceedings, present the relevant evidence, and PURSUE EFFECTIVE REMEDIES (which she never 13 did), without any curtailment of her procedural rights”; instead, they were not exercised, as a result of which statutory limitations were triggered and the case could not be reopened. Ecuador adds that the delay in the proceedings was due to circumstances beyond the control of the State, such as the fact that the accused were fugitives from justice and that it was impossible to violate their basic procedural guarantees. 30. The State notes that if the principle of reasonable time is not obeyed, the suspect is entitled to be released. It explains that that principle applies in consideration of the complexity of the matter, the procedural activity of the interested parties, and the actions of the judicial authorities. On this point, it contends that the matter is highly complex in that establishing medical negligence and the corresponding penalties requires numerous technical and scientific studies that must be carefully analyzed by the judge. 31. It further contends that the parties at no point cooperated with the investigation: partly because of the delays in the proceedings caused by the accused, and partly because of the fact of active involvement on the part of the injured parties. Ecuador holds that the deliberate lack of cooperation with the proceedings by the accused led to delays for which the State cannot be blamed. On this point, it notes that the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”) has ruled that delays in a court’s work do 14 not trigger the responsibility of the State in question. 32. It holds that the time limits established in domestic law cannot be considered ‘deadlines’ in that an unwarranted delay and possible violations of the principle of reasonable time take place whenever a case fails to observe them; instead, the limits are merely referential for later procedural analysis. Ecuador contends that although the proceedings lasted slightly over three years, that time does not per se represent a violation of Article 8 of the American Convention, since there were several elements that caused that delay, in addition to those that have already been pointed out. It holds that the accused used the remedies provided for by law to remedy their legal situation, and it would be unacceptable to blame those delays on the Ecuadorian authorities, “which ultimately ruled in accordance 15 with the applicable procedural and substantive criminal law.” 33. Finally, with respect to the medical treatment given to the victim, the State reports that on November 24, 2009, it urged the Ministry of Health to take the steps necessary to ensure Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta free access to care for her ailments at one of the public hospitals in the city of Guayaquil. The Ministry of Health replied that “the public health agencies are obliged to admit all persons 11 The State notes that this remedy is provided for in Art. 348.3 of the 1983 CCP. Office of the Attorney General of the State, document received on August 20, 2009. 12 The State notes that such a punishment is provided for in Art. 350 of the 1983 CCP. Office of the Attorney General of the State, document received on August 20, 2009. 13 Office of the Attorney General of the State, document received on August 20, 2009. The State grounds its arguments on: I/A Court H. R., Case of Genie Lacayo v. Honduras, para. 85. 14 The State cites: ECHR, Case of Deumeland, Judgment of May 29, 1986, para. 80. Office of the Attorney General of the State, document received on August 20, 2009. 15 Office of the Attorney General of the State, document received on August 20, 2009.