B. Obligation to investigate the facts and to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible 1. Request for investigations and the determination of administrative and criminal responsibilities 166. Both the Commission and the representative asked the Court to order the State to adopt the necessary measures to conduct an effective investigation into the facts of this case, and to sanction, within a reasonable time, the agents of justice whose conduct resulted in the excessive delay in the processing of the criminal proceedings and the consequent lack of access to justice for the victims. 167. In addition, the representative indicated that the Court should “require the Ecuadorian State to comply with the obligations imposed by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, by proceeding to conduct an exhaustive investigation and a prompt and impartial trial of all the persons who participated as masterminds and perpetrators, as well as accessories after the fact.” 168. For its part, the State indicated that “if the Court should find [it] guilty of the presumed violation of the rights of Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta, it would be pertinent to impose on the State the obligation to clarify the facts that occurred, but not for the Court to establish the sanction of those responsible as a measure of reparation, because the criteria that allow the principle of legal certainty offered by prescription to be breached are not met.” Regarding the agent of justice who processed the proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction, the State advised that he had been removed from his functions as a judge. 169. The Court observes that, in the Compliance Agreement signed by the State and Mrs. Suárez Peralta, the State undertook “[t]o inform the Prosecutor General’s Office of the facts and the Merits Report so that it would proceed with the investigation and the respective criminal sanction of the agents of justice owing to [their] conduct [and] to inform the Council of the Judicature of the facts and the Merits Report so that it could conduct an investigation and establish administrative sanctions.” 170. In Chapter VIII of this Judgment, the Court declared that the State had violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, because the State authorities failed to act with due diligence and based on their obligations concerning the duty to investigate and to exercise effective judicial protection. In addition, it indicated that the criminal proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. 171. Consequently, the Court will refer to the following matters: (a) the administrative and disciplinary investigations, and (b) the criminal proceedings. a) The administrative and disciplinary investigations 172. In previous cases, when referring to certain violations, the Court has decided that the State must initiate disciplinary, administrative or criminal actions, as appropriate, under domestic law, in relation to those responsible for the different investigative and procedural irregularities. 224 In this case, it has been proved that, despite Mrs. Peralta Mendoza’s 224 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre, supra, para. 233, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252, para. 325. 49