103. In the case of Chaparro and Lapo vs. Ecuador, the State carried out a partial settlement and accepted certain reparations measures. With regard to the habeas corpus remedy, the State specifically stated: The Ecuadorian State will exercise its best efforts through the National Constituent Assembly, soon to be established, to adapt the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus to international standards, […] so that the judicial verification of the conventionality, constitutionality, and legality of a detention will no longer depend on the highest municipal representative.93 104. In the proceedings before the Commission no evidence was presented that definitely determines or excludes the possibility of the involvement of State agents in this case. Nevertheless, the IACHR considers that the actions of the State—in terms of its lack of diligence with respect to the habeas corpus recourse (Article 28 of the Constitution in effect at the time) which led to its ineffectiveness, and the delegation of jurisdictional powers to the mayor, which is a per se incompatibility between Ecuadorian law applied in this case, and the American Convention—caused a violation of the victims’ right to have access to a simple and effective recourse for the protection of their fundamental rights in the terms of Articles 25 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, this latter in accordance with the principle of iura novit curiae. 105. The Commission notes that Article 90 of the 2008 Political Constitution of Ecuador94 establishes a new recourse for those cases in which “the place of the deprivation of liberty is unknown and there are indications of the intervention of some public official or any other agent of the State, or persons who act with their authorization, support, or acquiescence,” as occurred in the case of Mr. Palma Mendoza and it establishes an urgent search mechanism for a disappeared or kidnapped person. 2. The right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention) in relation to Article 4(1) of the same instrument 106. In this case, the petitioners argue that the conduct of the judicial authorities was deficient in that they did not carry out an effective investigation. They maintain that the criminal proceedings lasted more than five years, which is not a reasonable time period. They state that the matter was not a complex one in that Mr. Palma’s dead body was discovered a few days after his disappearance. They argue that the only reason that three people were sentenced for the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Palma is that one of those persons made a voluntary confession when he was arrested for reasons not related to this case. 107. For its part, the State contends that it undertook a serious and effective investigation and discovered those responsible for the criminal act, punishing them according to domestic legislation. It asserts that by virtue of the judgment on March 10, 2001, issued by the Sixth Criminal Court of Manabí, three people were punished for the kidnapping and murder of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza, and that that verdict was upheld by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 26, 2002, and that therefore the alleged violation did not take place. 93 Inter-American Human Rights Court, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. Vs. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Ser. C. No. 170, para. 30. 94 Article 90 of the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador: “When the place of the deprivation of liberty is unknown and indications exist about the intervention of a public official or any other agent of the State, or persons acting with their authorization, support, or acquiescence; the judge must call to his or her presence the highest representative of the National Police and the competent Minister. After hearing them, necessary measures will be undertaken to locate the person and those responsible for depriving them of their liberty.”