15 a power that, as indicated in the Code, neither replaced nor negated the prosecutors’ duty of initiating and pursuing criminal action. On this point, Article 23 stated: Art. 23. All criminal proceedings brought before a competent court or judge for the commission of a crime require the participation of the Public Prosecution Service (MP), even proceedings involving a private accuser, provided that the offense is publicly actionable. 59. In the case at hand, the process was initiated by a private accusation lodged by the 88 victim’s mother and the subsequent opening of the investigation by the judge. The investigation 89 (sumario), the purpose of which was to prepare for the trial, establishes short deadlines for conducting the set of proceedings leading to a criminal trial. Articles 216 and 217 of the CCP set out the duties of the judge and other parties involved in substantiating the investigation and also set sanctions for delays: Art. 216. The judge shall ensure that the investigation is not prolonged by unnecessary procedural steps, and he shall bring it to a conclusion with the deadline set by Art. 231, allowing no motions that might delay the proceedings. Art. 217. Secondary parts in the proceedings who, through negligence, delay the substantiation of the investigation shall be punished by the judge with a fine equal to one twentieth of the general minimum wage for each day of the delay. Criminal courts and superior courts shall impose the same fine on lower-court judges who fail to impose the fine stipulated in the previous paragraph or who, through negligence, delay the substantiation of the investigation. 60. The CCP also regulated the deadlines for completing various phases in the investigation, in line with the spirit of brevity that characterized it. Thus, the CCP established a maximum period of 15 days for organizing the investigation and conducting the formalities necessary to prepare the trial. It also set a maximum duration of sixty days for the investigation, and established sanctions applicable in cases of noncompliance. Thus, Articles 228, 231, and 232 of the CCP provided: Art. 228. The judge initiating proceedings must organize the investigation within a maximum of fifteen days, during which time he shall perform all the procedural formalities indicated in Art. 215. […] Art. 231. When the judge notices that necessary procedural formalities have not been carried out, he shall extend the investigation for an additional fifteen days for those formalities to be completed, either performing them himself or by instructing another judge to do so. If the procedures to be followed are numerous or need to be carried out in different locations, the judge may extend the investigation phase for up to an additional thirty days. Thus, in no instance may an investigation last for more than sixty days in all, punishable by a fine equal to up to one and a half times the general minimum wage, which the higher court shall impose, under its monetary responsibility, on the negligent judge. Art. 232. If a person is charged after the investigation begins, it shall remain open for fifteen days after the date on which the trial commencement deed and the deed expanding it to cover the newly named accused are issued. 61. Once all the procedural formalities of the investigation have been performed, the judge shall rule it concluded and order the private accuser, if any, to file formal charges. Article 235 of the CCP provided that “either with or without the filing of formal charges, the judge shall order the Public Prosecution Service to issue a ruling within the following six days.” Regarding the ruling of the Public Prosecution Service, the CCP provided: 88 89 According to Article 221, the investigation phase was to begin with the trial commencement deed. Article 215 of the CCP: “During the investigation phase, all procedural steps necessary to establish the existence of the crime and to name and identify its perpetrators, accomplices, and accessories after the fact shall be carried out.”