42 Commission takes special note of the unjustifiable delay which occurred in ordering and performing the specialized genetic testing suggested by the medical expert witnesses early on in the investigation. This delay even caused the intervention of the Ombudsman. The Commission observes that the case was closed on more than three occasions by the judicial authorities without performing this crucial testing. This situation caused the Public Prosecutor to repeatedly request that the judicial authorities reopen the case, with the attendant additional delays. 218. One of the most blatant examples of a lack of diligence in the criminal proceedings relates to the four years which elapsed between the time when the indictment was drawn up and accepted against Mrs. Mariana Ramírez in 2001, and February 2005 when the criminal proceedings were declared time barred. The available information indicates that it was not possible to pursue the trial against Mrs. Mariana Ramírez, since she was out of the country. From the case file, no procedural steps appear on the part of the State to locate Mariana Ramírez’s whereabouts in order to continue the trial and criminal proceedings. On the contrary, when this individual failed to appear at the criminal trial, the State of Ecuador remained inactive for a period of four years until the time limit elapsed, precisely due to its own lack of due diligence. 219. Besides this, in the context of the civil suit, the Commission observes that it lasted four years. The conclusion of the civil proceedings took place on May 18, 2006, with a judgment nullifying all proceedings from the time the plaint was admitted in 2002. In other words, in the context of the civil proceedings, the judicial authorities took four years to finally decide that the civil claim did not fulfill the requirements to be admitted, due to the absence of a final criminal sentence. 220. In light of the above, the Commission considers that the State of Ecuador has violated the rights to due process and judicial protection laid down in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 19 of the same instrument to the prejudice of TGGL, her mother and her brother. VI. CONCLUSIONS 221. Based on the considerations of fact and law set out in the present report, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Ecuador is responsible for the violation of the rights to a dignified life, human treatement, judicial guarantees and due process, established in Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations set out in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the prejudice of TGGL. Throughout, the Commission has concluded that the State of Ecuador has failed to fulfill its obligations of special protection of TGGL in her status as a child, in violation of Article 19 of the American Convention. Thus, the Commission concluded that the State of Ecuador is responsible for the violation of the rights to the moral integrity, judicial protection and due process, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the prejudice of TGGL’s mother and brother. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 222. By virtue of the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF ECUADOR, 1. Make reparations in full to TGGL and her mother for the violations of the human rights set forth in the present report, including both the material and moral aspects. 2. Provide, in consultation with TGGL, immediately and permanently, the specializaed medical treatment that she requires. manner. 3. Provide, in consultation with TGGL, the primary, high and university education, in a free