for Criminal, Collusion, and Traffic Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Azuay ruled that the statute of limitations had expired. 10. The petitioners state that, parallel to the above, on March 5, 2002 a civil suit was filed for damages and injury against the President and Director of the blood bank of the Red Cross of the Province of Azuay, respectively. They state that on July 12, 2005 the Sixth Criminal Judge of Cuenca issued a decision declaring the suit inadmissible. In response to an appeal, on May 18, 2006 the First Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca declared void everything that had been done from the time the suit was accepted for processing, in that Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that “there can be no suit for civil compensation based on the criminal offense as long as there is no criminal conviction carried out and declaring someone responsible for an offense.” There has been no such conviction issued in the instant case. 11. In view of the above, the petitioners allege that because she was infected by the HIV/AIDS virus, the minor female child TGGL has suffered serious injury to her health and life. They allege that she lacks access to the medical treatment and nutrition that her health situation requires. They mention that social rejection and discrimination prevent her from attending the primary school of her choice. They allege that the State is responsible for supplying banks with “safe blood” through entities such as the Ecuadorian Red Cross and thus the Ecuadorian State failed to fulfill its obligation to guarantee the right to life protected under the American Convention. The petitioners allege that the statute of limitations on the criminal action against the only person called to justice expired due to the inaction of the judges. They allege that since they do not have a conviction in the criminal case the civil suit was declared void and, therefore, they have not been able to obtain reparations for the damage caused to the female child TGGL. 12. In response to the State’s allegations regarding a failure to comply with the requirement regarding prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (see III B below), they maintain that the actions indicated by the State, i.e., the recusal action, the action for damages and injuries against magistrates, and the monetary compensation action against the State for having suffered damages, are not suitable, adequate, or effective remedies for obtaining justice. In addition, they allege that they have demonstrated that there were defects in the administration of justice so that the intervention of the IACHR would not constitute a fourth instance. B. The State 13. The State alleges that the complaint does not present facts that characterize violations of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention, in accordance with Article 47 of that convention. Specifically, the State alleges that the acts or omissions referred to in the petition are not attributable to agents of the State and that “the lamentable infection by HIV/AIDS suffered by the minor child [TGGL] is not attributable or imputable to the Ecuadorian State as such through its various agencies or institutions.” 8 14. It maintains that States are internationally responsible only for unlawful acts or events that can be imputed or attributed to them. It indicates that in the area of international responsibility “[] what is decisive is to elucidate whether a specific violation took place with the support or tolerance of the State or if the State acted in such a way that the violation was carried out without any effort to prevent it or with impunity [].”9 The State believes that the infection of the minor child TGGL with the HIV/AIDS virus and the resulting humiliation and 8 Official letter 05193 from the Office of the Attorney General dated December 4, 2008, submitted by means of Note No. 4-2-347/2008 of December 9, 2008. 9 The State refers to: I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4, para. 173; I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C, No. 5, para. 183, and I/A Court H.R., Gangaram Panday Case.Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C, No. 16, para. 62. Official letter 05193 from the Office of the Attorney General dated December 4, 2008, submitted by means of Note No. 4-2-347/2008 of December 9, 2008. 3