33 the State regarding the justification for the lethal use of force with firearms; and the failure to fulfill its obligation to effectively ensure the right to life through an investigation of the events; the Court is of the view that the alleged victims have been executed extrajudicially by state agents. Such extrajudicial execution constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their life and the State is therefore responsible for the violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña. VIII ARTICLES 8(1) AND 25 (JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION)96 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 111. In Chapter IV of the present Judgment, it has been established that the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention (supra paras. 8-31), both in the public hearing and in its final arguments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court deems relevant to make some precisions with regard to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives as well as to some declarations made by the State. 112. The Commission alleged that when the use of force causes injuries or death, the State has the international obligation to determine, through independent and impartial judicial organs, if the force used was excessive, and if so, to punish the perpetrators and to compensate the victims or their family members. Moreover, the Commission argued that the State cannot discharge on the family members or their representatives the duty to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. The Commission alleged that the judicial apparatus of the State has not been set in motion, which clearly shows that the family members of the alleged victims did not have an effective remedy which would guarantee them the possibility to be heard and to take part in the respective proceedings, both to clarify the facts and to punish the persons responsible, as well as to seek appropriate reparations. “In addition, under the standards applied by the Inter-American Court, the lapse of more than thirteen years [without any] proceeding [being] initiated is far lengthier than the limits and standards for what constitutes a reasonable time[…] This situation thus has given rise to a framework for total impunity attributable to the Ecuadorian State”. 113 The representatives agreed with the Commission in their arguments. Moreover, they argued that the right to independent and impartial judicial proceedings involves not only the right to certain guarantees in the course of the proceedings already initiated, but also the right to have 96 Article 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees) Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. Article 25 (Judicial Protection) 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.