61 reasonable time set forth in the American Convention. The same is true of the case of Mr. Erik Leonardo Chinchilla, in which there is no evidence that proceedings have been initiated in the justice tribunals. 153. The considerations contained in the preceding paragraph apply exclusively to the victims who were deprived of their lives and to the judicial proceeding initiated to determine the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of these acts, but not to the persons who also appear in this case and who were subject to ordinary criminal trials, since it has not been proven, nor does the Commission claim that, with regard to these last in particular which have ended, there was any infringement of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the Convention. 154. In this proceeding the State has produced copies of some action taken by its Agent against the decision to dismiss the case against those involved in the "white van case" who were tried in the domestic courts. Those actions, as well as the promulgation of the a new Code of Penal Procedure, are considered by the Court to be a voluntary expression of the State’s will to fulfill its constitutional and conventional obligations, but does not constitute evidence that the obligation contained in Article 8(1) of the American Convention was observed in the instant Case. 155. The Court considers that the so-called "white van case" was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal or within a reasonable time, and that the State did not provide the due guarantees to ensure the victims due process in determining their rights. Responsibility for this omission rests with the State, whose duty it was to make those guarantees. 156. The Court therefore considers that Guatemala violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Ms. Ana Elizabeth Paniagua-Morales, Mr. Julián Salomón Gómez-Ayala, Mr. William Otilio González-Rivera, Mr. Pablo CoradoBarrientos, Mr. Manuel de Jesús González-López and Mr. Erik Leonardo Chinchilla. XV VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 157. In its application the Commission requested the Court to rule that Guatemala violated the right to judicial protection and, consequently, Article 25 of the American Convention. That article establishes the right of every person to simple, prompt and effective recourse for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights. According to the Commission, in this case the State denied the victims access to effective judicial remedies by, inter alia, "not guaranteeing them an independent and impartial tribunal, by issuing arbitrary judicial decisions and by failing to pursue investigation of the white van crimes." 158. In its answer to the application, the State declared it to be false that it violated the victims’ right to judicial protection and judicial guarantees, inasmuch as two of them "brought criminal actions and made formal accusations in their capacity as subjects" in the proceeding that is still open for the purpose of clarifying the facts and punishing those responsible, and which has progressed without obstruction. It further averred that the State’s concern was manifest in its introduction of the new Code of Penal Procedure in Guatemalan legislation. 159. In its brief of final arguments, the Commission affirmed that the State denied the victims in this case and their relatives the right enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention. The Commission declared that ten years after the events the judicial proceeding is still at the pre-trial stage; no one has been found or tried; the victims’