22 VII.1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES 112 AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION113 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 74. The Commission concluded that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the survivors and the next of kin of the deceased and injured persons because (a) the independence and impartiality of the investigation was negatively affected while it was in the military jurisdiction, given the intervention of the military jurisdiction; (b) the activities were not conducted within a reasonable time because the nine years that it took the domestic justice to punish those responsible is excessive,114 and (c) there were “flaws and irregularities” due to (i) the manner in which the evidence was handled; (ii) the “long periods of inactivity”; (iii) the failure to carry out “certain procedures”; (iv) the “acceptance, contrary to legal standards, of different recourses and evidence presented by the defense“ and the “rejection, without explanation, of evidence and statements of the complainant,” and (v) the failure to adopt measures regarding the threats and harassment against different participants in the proceedings, which in turn had a repercussion on the activities, especially dilatory actions. 75. The representative claimed that the rights to the judicial guarantees and to judicial protection of the alleged victims were violated since the national criminal investigations had “a series of flaws, shortcomings and omissions.” It considered the proceedings to be “inconclusive.” It stated that they should have included not only the intellectual authors but also the chain of command. It also emphasized that “some arrests remained pending” and that the search has been “abandoned” without information on those who have been “fugitives from justice” for “more than two decades.” At the public hearing, it complained that “how can it be possible that the [convicted] persons are going to be [released] after completing a sentence and the Community has still not received appropriate reparations.” In its final written arguments, presented on March 9, 2018, the representative indicated that some “persons are already free and others can soon “request their liberty.”115 It also considered that the reasonability of the time was not respected The relevant part of Article 8 of the Convention reads: “Right to a Fair Trial 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 113 Article 25 of the Convention establishes: “Right to Judicial. Protection 1. Everyone has the right to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake to (a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; (b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy and (c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 114 The Commission underscored that during the proceedings there were periods of inactivity: (a) the delay of almost two years from when the incident occurred until the proceedings were opened; (b) the misplacing of the file during a couple of months at the end of 1997, and (c) the delay of more than three years to initiate the new oral trial, as ordered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court in April 2000. In addition, it considered that the delay could not be justified due to the complexity of the matter since the members of the patrol had been identified and because there were eyewitnesses to the event. 115 In its brief with final arguments, the representative explained that a decision of the Supreme Court of July 8, 2015 reduced the sentence of 40 years in prison to 30 years. It pointed out “eight” persons were already released but in the same document, in providing details on which of the convicted soldiers were free, it mentioned three persons in that situation and pointed out that 12 “could request their freedom,” four beginning on September 20, 2019 and the others during 2018. It indicated “good conduct” as the reason for the releases already granted or for those specified in the future. Regarding one convicted soldier, it mentioned that his release was set for April 5, 2018, but he was freed on October 27, 2015. In addition, although the 112