118. Regarding the recusal, as the Court has indicated, this was “a procedural instrument aimed at protecting the right to be tried by an impartial court and not [necessarily] an element that constituted or defined that right,” 154 particularly, as regards to the speediness of the proceedings. In this regard, the Court notes that this remedy was not designed to protect the legal situation that had been infringed and that was in dispute, because it would have been in admissible if obvious elements had been verified that might inhibit the objectivity of the judge in charge of the proceedings, but not to rectify a procedural delay that had already occurred. Based on the foregoing, this remedy was not appropriate. 155 iii. Civil action for compensation 119. With regard to the filing of civil actions for compensation against the doctors, the Court reiterates that, based on article 17 the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts (supra para. 106), such actions could not be filed, because the criminal proceedings had not been completed. Furthermore, regarding the action described extemporaneously by the State, in relation to filing a civil action against a judge (supra para. 111), it would not be designed to determine the damage suffered as a result of medical malpractice, but rather would be limited to debating an eventual damage caused by the procedural delay for which the judge was responsible. 120. Thus, although the State indicated the probable consequences if the recusal, appeal or civil action against the judge for damages had been filed (supra para. 111), it did not provide any practical examples that would prove the effectiveness of filing the said remedies as a measure to achieve the goal of the criminal investigation. 121. Based on all the above, the remedies indicated by the State should have been filed by the Prosecution. Moreover, the State failed to prove that they were admissible, appropriate or effective to clarify the facts, to determine responsibilities, and to achieve reparation for the adverse effects on the personal integrity and health of Melba Suárez Peralta. 3. Conclusion 122. In conclusion, the Court considers that, in this case, the errors, delays and omissions in the criminal investigation reveal that the State authorities did not act with due diligence or in keeping with the obligations to investigate and to ensure effective judicial protection within a reasonable time, in order to guarantee to Melba Suárez Peralta a reparation enabling her to have access to the medical treatment required by her health problems. Consequently, the State violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Melba Suárez Peralta and Melba Peralta Mendoza. IX RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 154 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious-Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 64. 155 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra, para. 64, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 142. 34