a) Almost nine months between the first re-opening of the preliminary proceedings ordered on August 14, 2001, and the Public Prosecution Service’s petition to annul this action on May 13, 2002 (supra paras. 53 and 61); b) Almost 15 months between the order to close the preliminary proceedings of November 27, 2001, and the final decision convening a plenary hearing on February 17, 2003 130 (supra paras. 60 and 63); c) Sixteen months between the admission of the appeal against the final decision convening a plenary hearing, on February 26, 2003, and the decision of the Superior Court of Justice on June 29, 2004 (supra para. 64), 131 and d) More than one year between the decision of the Superior Court of Justice confirming the convening of a plenary hearing on June 29, 2004, and the forwarding of the case file so that the court with competence at the plenary stage would continue processing it on June 30, 2005 (supra paras. 64 and 67). 132 99. In addition, it can be seen that most of the judicial actions were taken on the initiative of Melba Peralta Mendoza, 133 who filed numerous briefs before the Criminal Judge and the Criminal Court on August 7, 14 and 28, September 18 and 20, October 16 and November 14, 2000; October 18 and November 13, 2001; June 3, 2002; and August 23 and September 5, 12 and 22, 2005. In these petitions, she requested, among other matters, that the proceedings be continued and decided diligently, without obtaining any clear answer or action in response to her petitions. 100. Furthermore, even though the case related to a medical matter, which meant that it was rather complex, the slowness of the proceedings did not stem from this, above all, bearing in mind that the judicial agents failed to request technical or expert measures or specialized studies in order to investigate the facts, which might have justified the delay. In addition, in this case, the victim, the persons who performed the operation, the results of this intervention, the place and the circumstances of the facts were clearly identified. 101. The foregoing reveals the lack of diligence and effectiveness of the agents of justice in expediting the investigation proceedings in the case, which, added to the different gaps of time in the processing of the case, culminated in the prescription of the criminal proceedings. In other words, the responsibility for the errors and the delay in the proceedings and their consequent prescription was due, exclusively, to the way in which the Ecuadorian judicial authorities acted, who bore the responsibility for taking all the necessary measures to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible, irrespective of the measures taken by the parties. 134 130 In this regard, article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that, once the defendant’s answer was received, the judge would proceed to declare a nonsuit or the opening of the plenary hearing, as appropriate. 131 In this regard, article 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that this appeal must be heard within 15 days. 132 In this regard, article 359 the Code of Criminal Procedure established that, once the decision was final, the proceedings would be forwarded to the lower court for immediate execution. 133 The Court notes that Melba Peralta Mendoza filed various briefs to expedite the proceedings, in which she requested, successively, the processing of the pertinent measures, the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings and the convening of a plenary hearing, as applicable (file of annexes to the Merits Report, folios 209 to 212). 134 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of Ecuador (1983), articles 21, 23 and 169 (file of annexes to the answering brief, folios 2687 to 2751). Case of Ximenes Lópes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 199, and Case of Albán Cornejo. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 108. 29