instrument. 133. The representatives pointed out that the State violated the right of access to justice of the alleged victims, given the normative design in force at the time of the facts, insofar as the victims were not allowed to participate in the process before the military criminal justice system, which caused procedural imbalance. They requested declaration of violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention in relation to Article 24 of the same instrument. 134. The State indicated that it “recognizes that investigation [of the facts] and the subsequent criminal proceedings in [the] military jurisdiction […] were not in accordance with the inter-American standards,” in particular because the military jurisdiction “is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of alleged human rights violations.” It argued that, notwithstanding the foregoing, "the international responsibility" of the state was not established, because since issuing the final report of the Truth Commission, the competent authorities "took the necessary measures to investigate the crime with the order to punish those responsible.” 135. It indicated that the domestic legal system in force at the time of the events "allowed for effective protection of judicial guarantees," such that any allegation regarding an alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention in this matter must be dismissed. It added that, at present, the regulations related to the Military Criminal Code have been repealed, so that "practices connected to military jurisdiction have also been eliminated from the Ecuadorian judicial system." 136. It indicated that, despite an unsatisfactory response by the military criminal jurisdiction, the investigation undertaken since the Truth Commission report was issued “satisfied the State's obligations to guarantee the rights of [the] next of kin of access to justice and to know the truth about the facts.” Thus, the Truth Commission "documented eight victims and concluded that four alleged perpetrators were involved." It indicated that the Office of the Prosecutor General has carried out various procedures, including collecting information and exhuming the body of Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñonez. Said institution is carrying out the necessary actions aimed at determining the responsibilities derived from the facts of the case. It added that the alleged victims and their representatives have access to the investigation file and are informed of the progress made. 137. It indicated that the mere fact that the investigation has not made it possible to identify the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator or perpetrators of the crimes committed does not constitute, per se, a violation of human rights. A.2. Right to the protection of honor and dignity 138. The representatives argued that the public accusation made by the State of the Casierra Quiñonez brothers, insofar as “they carried firearms and used them against the National Navy, significantly detract[ed] from their honor and good name; not only theirs, but that of their whole family." Such accusations, regarding which the state authorities did not present irrefutable evidence, classified the alleged victims as “criminals and bandits,” which seriously damaged their personal life, public reputation, and their family environment. 139. The State indicated that the alleged victims were not prosecuted or arrested for any crime, nor was any judicial proceeding initiated against them, so there is no basis for affirming that they suffered “accusations” by the domestic authorities. It indicated that the representatives did not argue what precisely consisted of the effects on the honor or private life of the alleged victims, thereby failing to provide evidence of damage to that effect. On the contrary, the testimony of the alleged victims and witnesses to the events show that they have not suffered any harm to their honor and dignity. 33