State at that time the facts took place.92 In this regard, the Court considers that, said report itself is not sufficient evdience to prove the alleged generalized situation in Ecuador at the time of the facts of this case regarding that presented by the Commission. VIII JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN REGARD TO PEDRO MIGUEL VERA VERA AND FRANCISCA MERCEDES VERA VALDEZ A. Arguments of the parties 82. The Commission noted that the facts of this case have not been investigated by the State and that Mr. Vera Vera’s next of kin were not provided with an effective remedy to ensure access to justice, the determination of the truth of the facts, the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators, and reparations for the damage caused, despite its obligation to do so ex oficio. Therefore, it requested the Court to declare that the State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations under Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez, among others. 83. Additionally, the representative noted that “[d]espite the fact that this case regards a public ex oficio action, [the] investigations should have been initiated to ascertain the facts, and to date the State has not initiated any legal investigation in order clarify the circumstances in which the victim was shot by a firearm and to identify and punish those responsible […],” and it has also not “investigated the reasons he died while in State custody.” Due to the foregoing, much like the Commission, the representative requested the Court to declare the State in violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez. 84. The State noted that in Ecuador there are “appropriate measures in place to protect and preserve the right to life of individuals under its jurisdiction, determining the investigation and action against the responsible person, and also offering the possibility to file a complaint that would allow persons to bring the cause before the authority, in order for the State to investigate in an adequate manner.” In that sense, it argued that “[t]he appropriate channel is through the filing of a complaint, which must be recognized and promoted by the petitioners in order for the State to carry out the appropriate action which [it] is obligated to carry out and which did not take place [in this case].” The family of Mr. Vera Vera never filed any complaint, even though the State, at no time, restricted this possibility. Therefore, the State considered that it was not responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 92 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador, on April 24, 1997 (case file of annexes to the application, annex 11, folios 34 and 35). 33