5 investigation into the facts, with no specific results, and without reporting on any progress thereof. 10. That the representatives pointed out that, according to the last report by the State, it was in September, 1999 that the Fiscalía General [Office of the Prosecutor General] received the complaint about the facts and forwarded it to the judges having competent jurisdiction in Guayaquil, for which reason, although at the time criminal judges had a monopoly over investigations, such circumstance did not prevent the Ministerio Público [Office of the Public Attorney] from taking steps aimed at furthering the identification and punishment of those responsible. In such manner, “what the Ministerio Fiscal General [Office of the Prosecutor General] said turns out to be false” because there are no grounds for its having abstained from instituting the public criminal action in its purview. Thus, the State has not taken any real action to tending to investigate the facts. They pointed out the “lack of a will to punish Juez Noveno Penal de Guayas [Criminal Judge Number Nine in and for Guayas] who irresponsibly let the time to investigate lapse [,] without effecting the investigation” and, on the contrary, lost the case file and then decreed the statute of limitations to have operated in 2007. They argued that the State did not take a position regarding the rejection of such decision declaring the statute of limitations to have operated on the criminal action, for which reason it would seem to be in force. They affirmed that “the State […] allows the events to go unpunished, thus maintaining a permissive attitude fostering that the same acts be perpetrated in the future” and requested the Court to declare the State in contempt of this point. 11. That in the course of the hearing the Commission set much store by the information provided by the State, but held it to be insufficient, it was not known what become of the lost case file, of the apparent decree declaring the statute of limitations to have operated in two out of the three cases and of an alleged summons the State would have addressed to the public prosecutor. 12. That, in the Judgment, the Court underscored that a blatant denial of justice and a violation of the right to access to justice of the family members of the victims had taken place for “the time elapsed since the facts in the instant case took place inordinately exceeds the period of time which could be considered reasonable for the State to carry out the corresponding investigation proceedings, all the more since to the time already elapsed should be added the time necessary for instituting and carrying out the criminal proceedings, with the various stages that such proceeding involves, up to the final decision.”6 13. That the Court notes that after the Judgment was passed, the only procedural step known to have been taken in the criminal system is the abovementioned complaint filed on October 9, 2007 with the Ministro Fiscal General del Estado [General Prosecuting Minister of State]. However, in its last report, the State pointed out that it was in September, 1999 that the Fiscalía General [Office of the Prosecutor General] received the complaint about the facts and forwarded the case to the judges with competent jurisdiction in Guayaquil. In any case, the State has not reported on specific investigation actions or results achieved in such endeavors. So that the situation verified at the time of delivering the Judgment persists to date. 14. That considering the lack of action that has been evidenced, the Court holds that the State must step up its efforts forthwith so that the facts that constituted human rights violations be investigated with all the diligence due, particularly if it is borne in mind that in the Judgment it was determined that those responsible were State agents. 6 Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 126.