9 22. To my personal satisfaction, the Inter-American Court, in this Judgment of the case Ximenes-Lopes, was unanimously true to its best jurisprudence constante regarding the matter, repeating with the highest clarity its understanding of the inevitable dissociability between Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention, as it unmistakably arises from paragraph 191 of this Judgment, when pointing out that “the effective remedy of Article 25 must follow the process according to the rules of due process of law set forth in Article 8 of the Convention.” Also, the Court reminded that the international liability of the State for the violation of international rules differs from its liability in domestic law (para. 193). 23. Concurrently with the position assumed by the Court in this regard, I cannot help remarking that, as a reply to the questions I posed during the public hearing of November 30, 2001 and December 1, 2005 before the Court, both the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights (CIDH) and the victim’s representatives and next of kin expressed that the best hermeneutics of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention is the one which effectively and necessarily relates them. The CIDH ruled defending "the integrated combination of due process of law and effective protection of rights of Article 8(1) and Article 25" of the Convention, 185 and the above mentioned representatives affirmed in the same sense that the “clearer understanding of those provisions within the Inter-American system would be to analyze both sections jointly, even because that is precisely what most of the jurisprudence of that Honorable Court does.”186 IV. The Right of Access to Justice as the Right to the Prompt Response by the Judicial System. 24. The right of access to justice lato sensu presumes the understanding that it means the right to a prompt response by the judicial system. Its faithful fulfillment was not verified in the case of Ximenes-Lopes, as it is clearly inferred from the facts themselves. For instance, on March 27, 2000, the Public Prosecutor’s representative filed a criminal complaint in Sobral county against four people allegedly involved in the penalties of the Brazilian Penal Code (Article 136(2)) for mistreatment resulting in the death of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes. Two months later, the prosecutors of the Operational Support Center for Socially Discriminated Groups of the Attorney General’s Office expressed to the acting Prosecutor of the case that the supplemental complaint constituted a “legal and institutional imposition;” despite the above, it was only on September 22, 2003, when presenting the closing arguments, that the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a supplemental complaint to include other two people. 25. The delay in processing the supplemental complaint took even longer, as it was only on June 17, 2006 that the Judge of Sobral County received it. When doing so, he sought to justify his own delay due to the “high volume of work of the 3rd . 125. 185 186 . Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Transcript of Public Hearing..., op. cit. supra n. (3), p. Ibid., p. 126.