38 series of questions raised by the prosecution concerning the credibility of an expert’s findings, but there is no indication as to whether those questions were resolved. 190. Finally, the Commission notes that in the case file it was provided information regarding alleged records of an arbitrary use of force. The Commission considers that despite the fact that the investigation and criminal procedure was limited to a concrete fact, the duties to monitor and exercise an effective control of agents with the authority to use force implies that the information regarding alleged records should have been considered in the investigation and criminal procedure in order to clarify the possible existence of a pattern of conduct. c. Conclusion 191. Based on the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Ecuador did not provide an adequate and effective remedy, with the guarantees of a due process, to the next of kin of José Luis García Ibarra for a clarification of his death. The final decision in the criminal procedure regarding the sentence of unintentional homicide was not the result of a serious and diligent investigation according to the standards applicable to the State’s response regarding lethal use of force by police officers. It was the consequence of the non-compliance of those standards due to a number of omissions that prevented clarify effectively inconsistencies in the versions and, therefore, were the reason why it was not achieved clarification and an effective punishment for what happened. 192. Consequently, the State is responsible for violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Pura Vicenta Ibarra Ponce (mother), Alfonso Alfredo García Macias (father), and his siblings Luis Alfonso, Santo Gonzalo, Ana Lucía, Lorena Monserrate, Alfredo Vicente and Juan Carlos, all surnamed García Ibarra.