223. In this regards, the Commission notes that the case of Deumeland v. Germany197 cited by the State addresses different subject matter from that of the instant case and while the European Court did note that “a temporary backlog of court business does not engage international responsibility of the State concerned, provided that the State takes remedial action with the requisite promptness,” it did take into account the argument of the State of Germany pertaining to potential buildup of cases as a consequence of the creation of a new Chamber, as a result of the delay in hearing the cases before the Social Court of Berlin. The IACHR notes that, without prejudice to this argument, in the referenced case, the European Court ruled there was a violation of reasonable time. In this sense, the Commission considers that the argument pertaining to the workload of the courts is out of order inasmuch as it is the duty of the State itself to organize its institutions in order for it to be able to meet the demands of justice of the persons under its jurisdiction. In addition, the Commission has no information about any aspect of structural nature that could reasonably have obstructed the progress in the process. 224. In conclusion, after a comprehensive study of the criminal proceedings, the arguments invoked by the State do not justify the period time the case against Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles lasted. Considering the characteristics analyzed in the present case, the Commission considers that the period of 4 years and 3 months that the authorities delayed establishing the responsibility of Mr. Domingo Revelles, during which he suffered a measure of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, exceeded the limits of reasonable time stablished in article 8.1 of the Inter-America Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. VI. CONCLUSIONS 225. In view of the preceding findings of fact and law, the Commission concludes that the State of Ecuador is responsible for violation of Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention Human Rights in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of Jorge Eliécer Herrera Espinoza, Luis Alfonso Jaramillo González, Eusebio Revelles and Emmanuel Cano. The Commission also concludes that the State of Ecuador is responsible for violation of Article 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of said instrument. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RECOMMENDS THE STATE OF ECUADOR, 1. To provide full reparation to the victims in the instant case covering both tangible and intangible damages. 2. To conduct a serious, diligent and effective investigation, within a reasonable period of time, in order to clarify the acts of torture described in the instant report, individually identify those responsible and impose the appropriate punishments. 3. To order the administrative, disciplinary and criminal measures, as appropriate, for actions and omissions of State officials (police agents, prosecutors, public defenders and judges of the different levels of the judiciary), who contributed with their conduct to the violation of the rights to the detriment of the victims of the case. 4. To adopt the measures necessary to prevent similar acts from happening in the future. Specifically, to develop training programs for public security forces, judges and prosecutors, on the absolute prohibition of acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, as well as the 197ECHR, Case of Deumeland v. Germany. Application no. 9384/81. Judgment of 29 May 1986 (only available in English at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57468) 52