which was declared inadmissible by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 26, 2002.99 62. Subsequently, on February 16, 2007, the XIth Judge of Manabí declared final100 the temporary stay of proceedings and provisional dismissal of the accused, 101 and this was confirmed by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice on April 9, 2007, 102 on a legal consultation filed by the XIth Judge of Manabí concerning the order for the final stay of proceedings. The last two decisions declared that the “final stay of proceedings and dismissal of [certain persons] accused” was decided on the grounds that, after the provisional stay of proceedings had been decided, “the preliminary proceedings had not been reopened” and “further evidence” had not been gathered. VII RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW (ARTICLES 8, 25, 4, 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) Observations of the Inter-American Commission and arguments of the parties 63. The Commission, in its Admissibility and Merits Report, concluded that: […] In this case, an effective remedy was not provided to Mr. Palma’s next of kin, within a reasonable time, in order to guarantee them access to justice and to the investigation and prosecution of those responsible as well as to reparations for damage related to Mr. Palma’s kidnapping and murder. Therefore, the State is responsible for violating the rights to judicial 99 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, Second Criminal Chamber, of June 26, 2002 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 52, folios 1758 to 1760). 100 Cf. Order on final stay of proceedings issued by the XIth Judge of Manabí on February 16, 2007 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 53, folio 1776). Article 243 of the Ecuadorian Code of Criminal Procedure, Law 134 of June 10, 1983, established that “[t]he stay of the proceedings and the dismissal of the accused shall be final when the judge concludes that the existence of the crime has not been proved beyond any doubt. The judge shall also issue an order of final stay of proceedings and dismissal of the accused, if he finds that reasons exist that exempt the defendant from responsibility.” Article 246 establishes that “[w]hether the stay of proceedings or the dismissal of the accused is provisional or final, the judge shall immediately release the accused if he should be in preventive detention, without prejudice to ordering this again if the stay of proceedings should be revoked, or if, being provisional, new accusations are filed against the accused. In addition, the provisions of article 328 shall be met in relation to the presentation of the individual whose case has been discontinued before the police authorities of his usual place of residence. If the Public Prosecution Service appeals the stay of proceedings ordered, release shall be granted on bail, whatever the crime involved. This bail shall respect the provisions of article 183 of this Code.” Meanwhile, article 348 indicated that “[t]he appeal shall be admissible when any of the parties files it with regard to the following orders: (1) Provisional or final stays of proceedings […].” Article 247 of this Code established the following: [t]he final stay of proceedings terminates the trial and, consequently, prevents another one being opened for the same fact.” Furthermore, article 249 establishes that: “[t]he provisional stay of proceedings suspends the hearing for five years; and the provisional dismissal of the accused suspends it for three years. These time frames shall be calculated from the date of the issue of the respective order of stay of proceedings.” Lastly, article 250 established “[i]f, after the order for a provisional stay of proceedings has been issued and within the time frames referred to in the preceding article, the Judge should become aware of the existence of persons, things or documents that can help elucidate the truth, he shall order, extra-procedurally, that the said persons come to his office to question them, or the seizure of the objects or documents to examine them.” 101 Namely: Medardo Cevallos Gómez-Piñán, Ramón Bravo Mera, Marcelino Gómez Ponce, Medardo Cevallos Balda, Alberto Cevallos Gómez-Piñán, David Cevallos Gómez-Piñán, Carlos Cevallos, Ignacio Buenaventura Reyes Cadenas and Isabel Montaño de Mera, and also Carlos Alfredo Cedeño Vite and Jhonny Menéndez. 102 Cf. Decision of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Portoviejo of April 9, 2007 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 54, folios 1778 and 1779). 22