competent judicial authorities strictly guided by the rules of due process established in Article 8 of the Convention.109 94. Given the foregoing, the Court is precluded from determining whether what happened to Mr. Vera Vera can be established as a crime of battery or homicide identified by the representative and the expert Manuel Ramiro Aguilar Torres as this, specifically, must be established by the competent State authority. Notwithstanding, the Court notes that pursuant to that stated by the expert Aguilar Torres, the Code of Criminal Procedure in Ecuador at the time of the events, which was provided by the State and the representative (supra para. 9), established a general rule under which the prosecution was always public, given some exceptions provided for in Article 428 of the Code, those of which are prosecuted via private prosecution (supra para. 92 footnote on page 114 and 115). Among these exceptions the crimes of battery and homicide are not found, for which the Court finds that the exercise of the criminal action for such crimes was always public and, therefore, should have been carried out ex oficio. Therefore, the Court notes that the analysis of this section should not refer to actions regarding the investigation that Mr. Vera Vera’s next of kin should have initiated, particularly, if they had to file a formal complaint, but rather, in dealing with a case of an ex officio obligation by the State, the Court must analyze the actions taken by it in this regard. 95. From the facts developed broadly in Chapter VII of this Judgment, it is clear that by means of different authorities with different responsibilities, as well as doctors from public hospitals, at all times the State was aware that Mr. Pedro Miguel Vera Vera had received a gunshot wound before his arrest, that he was injured during this, and that, as a consequence, he had died. As has already been mentioned, under the Criminal Code in force during the commission of the facts stated that “crimes against judicial activity” are those that involve a failure to prosecute by any officer, policeman, doctor, surgeon, among others, upon having knowledge of facts constituting a crime.110 96. In this regard, it arises form the case file, together with that indicated by the State, that it has not conducted any investigation into the causes of death of Mr. Vera Vera. 97. It is the jurisprudence of this Court that upon acting in a manifestly ommisive and negligent manner, State bodies are not acting in accordance 109 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 03, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 106; and Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 15, para. 47, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 94, para. 158. 110 The provisions establish (case file of Merits, tomo II, f. 923): Article 292.- “Any public officer or any police officer who, having been informed of the commission of a crime, does not take action immediately to inform a judge shall be punished with imprisonment of fifteen days to six months. Article 293 .- Any physician, surgeon, dentist, midwife, or any other person in the exercise of a health profession, who while providing professional services, uncovers a fact that appears as a sign of the commission of a crime and does not divulge the information to the police or a judge, shall be punished by a fine of eighty to seventy and seven dollars of the United States of America, unless the complaint will lead to criminal responsibility of the person being assisted.” 39