4 Consequently, the State has not taken any real action to investigate the facts, carrying out no more than a few official communications and meetings, which had little impact. Also, there is no will to sanction the judge that irresponsibly allowed time to pass, failed to carry out the investigation, lost the case file, and declared the prescription period. Then, the representatives observed that the preliminary investigation initiated by the Public Ministry is an investigation that is carried out before a criminal proceeding has begun, and it cannot remain open for more than one year, barring a few exceptions, and that it is reserved for third parties and the public in general, without affecting the rights of the offended and the accused. Although said inquiry had begun evidently late, the representatives hope that it will lead to real actions being taken to identify those responsible. They requested that the State periodically informs them of the advances made in the investigation, guarantee the next of kin their right to be informed about the progress and decisions therein, and that their right to be heard and to present evidence is recognized. Also, they requested that the State let the decision made by the Judiciary Board be known in an appropriate fashion. 7. The Commission manifested that “it values the State’s willingness to avoid impunity in the present case and the information offered,” stating that it has no additional information about the prior preliminary investigation, the facts being investigated therein and their relation to the case, or about the execution of the pertinent and necessary actions to progress with the investigation. 8. The Court observes that, according to the information provided, the State recently started the investigation with a preliminary investigation, led by the Prosecution Ministry. More than three years after the Judgment were handed down and more than 17 years since the events occurred, the victims serious lack of access to justice in the present case is evident, as shown by the clear lack of investigation on the authorities’ behalf. The establishment of an “action for non-compliance” is noteworthy in this case and, in general, as a jurisdictional guarantee recently provided for in Article 93 of the Constitution of Ecuador3 so that the Public Defense of the People could exercise more direct control over the public functions. In this case, according to the State information, an action of this kind had been initiated against the Prosecutor General of the State due to the lack of investigation into the case, such that the Constitutional Court declared the lack of compliance with the InterAmerican Court’s Judgment and prescribed the measures necessary to secure compliance. Also, the State has informed of disciplinary measures, such as the present action against the judge that declared the prescription. Notwithstanding, although disciplinary path and non-compliance actions are noteworthy complementary control measures, the State must adopt those necessary actions so as to effectively comply with its main obligation of investigating the facts of this case within the ordinary justice system. 9. Due to the lack of action taken, the Court reiterates that the State shall intensify its efforts to investigate all the human rights violations with due diligence. When doing so, it should be taken into account that the Judgment established that 3 Article 93 of the Constitution of Ecuador establishes the following: Action for Non-Compliance Art. 93 –Action for non-compliance will have the purpose of enforcing application of the statutes making up the system of laws and implementation of rulings or reports by international human rights organizations when the statute or decision whose implementation is sought contains a clear, explicit and enforceable obligation to act or refrain from acting.