3 which they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the orders issued by the Court in its decisions are implemented within their jurisdictions.1 4. As the Court’s Judgments are final and not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the States must comply with them promptly and fully. a) Duty to carry out investigations under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction 5. Regarding the duty to immediately carry out the due procedures and to use all the measures available in order to expedite the investigation and the respective procedures under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction to identify, prosecute and, when necessary, sanction those responsible (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State stated that it informed the Fiscalía General del Estado [Prosecutor General’s Office] about “the error that had been committed by failing to promptly investigate the case facts.” According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the report was presented in 1997, but according to the report presented by the Procudaría General del Estado [Attorney General’s Office], the Prosecutor General was informed of the facts in 2007. The State manifested that, once the cases’ preliminary investigation is opened, “the prescription decreed by the Ninth Criminal Judge of Guayas would be revoked” and it would receive statements and testimonies. Also, the State informed that it coordinated with the Public Defense Office of the People so that the latter would present an “proceeding on grounds of non-compliance,” a jurisdictional guarantee provided for in Article 93 of the Constitution of Ecuador of 2008,2 against the Prosecutor General of the State due to the lack of investigation into the case, so that the Constitutional Court declare that the Judgment of the Inter-American Court has not been complied with and order the necessary measures thereto. Accordingly, the Public Defense Office presented the “preparatory information request” to the Prosecutor General as a step towards this proceeding. In August 2010, the opening of the Preliminary Investigation was stipulated, which based on the “preparatory request,” initiated the investigation of the case facts. Also, in August 2010, the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights, and Worship requested that the President of the Board of Judiciary re-open the administrative case file of the judge who, at that time, had declared the prescription period. 6. The representatives manifested that the information provided by the State evidenced that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to date, had not begun the investigation to comply with that provided for in the Judgment. They indicated that the judicial employees failed to comply with the constitutional and legal guarantees, which state that the Public Ministry is obliged to begin, on their own accord, investigations into every criminal offence, and, the State has not proceeded to revoke the prescription period issued by the Ninth Criminal Judge of Guayas. 1 Cf. Case of Baena and others v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paragraph 60; Case of Escher and others v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering third, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three. 2 In conformity with Article 54 of the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, all the persons and the Public Defense of the People have the right to present the aforementioned action.