5 on June 14 and 26, 2007, respectively. Accordingly, the Court will not allow them on the grounds of their late filing. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 10. During the public hearing (supra para. 8), the State presented a partial acknowledgment regarding the violation of the right to a fair trial and of the right to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. It stated it acknowledged its international responsibility “derived from not having gone ahead with the procedures for extraditing the resident physician, [Dr. Fabián] Espinoza[-Cuesta]” (hereinafter, “Dr. Fabián Espinoza-Cuesta” or “Dr. EspinozaCuesta”), one of the accused in the criminal proceedings carried on in its domestic jurisdiction. Such acquiescence was limited to acknowledging “the facts derived from the extradition procedures, the negligence [and] the omission in which the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) and the Fifth Criminal Judge from Pichincha (Juez Quinto de lo Penal de Pichincha) incurred by not having acted towards extraditing the aforementioned doctor in a duly manner on their own motion, as an obligation of their own.” 11. The State reaffirmed such statements in its final written arguments, indicating that such acquiescence did not include either the civil proceedings aimed at having the medical file exhibited or the criminal proceedings carried out in its domestic jurisdiction. Furthermore, it expressed it acknowledged as “not having done its duty to adopt domestic provisions, pursuant Article 2 of the Convention, by not having enacted a more adequate criminal description to punish physicians who incur in malpractice.” It also expressed it had the intention to “prepare and back the enactment of a medical malpractice bill and bills to amend related provisions.” 12. The Inter-American Commission considered that “the partial acquiescence of the State must have full effects regarding the facts and the violations accepted by Ecuador and request[ed] the Tribunal to determine so.” In its closing arguments, it noted the intention of the State to acquiesce and commended in a positive manner the commitment it had made to start off “procedures aimed at enacting and amending criminal descriptions and at training judges” in order to further compliance with the Convention, as well as the statements the State had made during the public hearing, wherein it acquiesced to having violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention regarding the negligence of the authorities in carrying on with the extradition of Dr. Fabián Ernesto Espinoza-Cuesta. Lastly, the Commission pointed out that the State had not denied the facts of the case in the procedures undertaken before the Commission or before the Court, and considered that the abovementioned violations acknowledged by the State were no longer in dispute. 13. The representatives accepted the partial acknowledgment effected by the State, but considered it “absolutely insufficient and not made in an attitude of good faith”, for during seven years State authorities did nothing to find out the whereabouts of Dr. Espinoza-Cuesta and to have him brought before the pertinent authorities, and in January 2007 the statute of limitations ran out and the charges against him lapsed. Such circumstances fostered impunity, both for Dr. EspinozaCuesta himself and for the other treating physician, Ramiro Montenegro-López, who