36 procedural activity that would have affected the progress of the investigation. While there is information concerning the withdrawal of the private accusation, because this case was one that the State had a duty to investigate ex officio, that information is irrelevant for purposes of the analysis of the reasonableness of the time taken to investigate and prosecute the case. 2. The due diligence practiced in the investigation a. The impact that the confusion over the question of jurisdiction had, both on the initial stage of investigation and on the trial phase. 181. As for the matter of due diligence, the Commission begins by observing that the initial jurisdictional debate not only caused unwarranted delays in the terms described above, but also affected the diligence and rigor of the investigation. 182. The fact that it was not until October 4, 1993 that the ordinary courts were given jurisdiction in the case indicates that at the most vital stages of the investigation, the authorities were focusing their attention on the question of jurisdiction, and not on exhausting all the measures necessary for and pertinent to a clarification of the facts. Here, the Commission must once again emphasize how important diligence is in the early stages of the investigation and that irregularities committed in these stages can undermine the chances of getting to the truth of what happened. 183. Apart from their impact on the initial stages of the investigation, the Commission observes that the jurisdictional questions also took a toll on the trial phase as well. One member of the First Criminal Court of Esmeraldas disqualified himself on jurisdictional grounds – since in his view the case belonged in police jurisdiction. As a result, this member did not rule on the merits of the case. As observed in the section on findings of fact, the sentence finally imposed, which was 18 months in prison for unintentional homicide, was a function of the procedural situation created by this selfdisqualification and by the two conflicting rulings issued by the two remaining members of the court, with the result that there was no majority decision. Furthermore, this member’s self-disqualification, which had a direct impact on the final determination of the facts, was described by the Supreme Court as an irregularity.120 184. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether the sentence ultimately imposed in this case was adequate. However, without entering into the question of the severity or lack of severity of the sentence, the Commission considers that a basic corollary for access to the truth and to justice in cases such as this demands that the sentence be determined on the basis of the decision that the judicial authorities reach after serious and diligent deliberation. In the present case, the sentence ultimately imposed was not the product of a serious and diligent determination of the facts; instead, it was the result of one judge’s self-disqualification on jurisdictional grounds and the two conflicting opinions of the two remaining judges who presided over the criminal proceedings. In short, the response that the next of kin of adolescent Garcia Ibarra finally got from the 120 In its February 26, 2002 ruling, the Supreme Court wrote the following “Furthermore, another irregularity by the Criminal Court was the opinion written by Dr. Joel Arias Velez, as this member of the court had no authority to issue any opinion asserting that the Criminal Court did not have jurisdiction. One year and five months earlier the police courts had declined jurisdiction in favor of the ordinary jurisdiction and had sent the entire case file to the ordinary court judge.”