resulting in impunity, thus thwarting the due judicial protection of human rights,” 128 and that “judges, in their capacity to guide the proceedings, have the obligation to manage and prosecute judicial proceedings in a way that does not sacrifice justice and due process of law to formalism and impunity”; otherwise, this “leads to the violation of the State’s international obligation of prevention and to protect human rights, and violates the right of the victim and his or her next of kin to know the truth of what happened, that those responsible are identified and punished, and to obtain the corresponding reparations.” 129 1. Due diligence and a reasonable time in the investigation and the criminal proceedings 94. Within the factual framework of this case, it has been proved that the investigation was initiated on August 2, 2000, based on a complaint filed before the Guayas First Criminal Court by Melba Peralta Mendoza, Melba Suárez Peralta’s mother (supra para. 46). Regarding the said investigation, the Court will proceed to formulate considerations on the delays, errors and omissions observed throughout the criminal proceedings that concluded with the declaration of the prescription of the action by the Guayas First Criminal Court on September 20, 2005 (supra para. 71). 95. In this regard, the Court notes that the preliminary proceedings were opened on August 16, 2000, by means of the “court order to investigate the alleged offense” issued by the Criminal Judge and requiring different measures to be taken (supra para. 46). However, up until the first closure of the preliminary proceedings, on March 22, 2001, the case file only contains the statement and the forensic examination of the presumed victim, and the information on the employment situation of the accused. 96. The Court also observes the presence of various errors and omissions in the implementation of essential actions to investigate and resolve the case, such as: (a) the statement of the accused Emilio Guerrero was never taken; (b) the inspection of the site of the facts was carried out a year after the proceedings started; (c) the statement of the accused, Wilson Minchala was taken 14 months after the proceedings started, on October 19, 2001, and (d) the testimonial statements of individuals who were alleged to have taken part in the medical procedures performed on the victim, Héctor Taranto and Jenny Bohórquez, were taken almost 15 months after the proceedings started, on November 12 and 13, 2001, respectively (supra paras. 55 to 59). 97. The foregoing also reveals that the State’s actions were not effective, because article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts established that “the preliminary proceedings shall never take more than sixty days.” These actions took from August 16, 2000, to November 27, 2001 (supra paras. 46 and 60). 98. Similarly, the Court observes that, even though it corresponds to the Public Prosecution Service to advance proceedings in cases of public criminal actions, the first action of this Service only occurred on May 29, 2001; in other words, nine months after the issue of the court order to investigate the alleged offense. Furthermore, extensive gaps between certain actions can be noted, such as: 128 Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 115, and Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 210. 129 Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra, para. 211, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre, supra, para. 120 and 255. 28