station, Rivera Enríquez ordered the patrol car driver to head to the esplanade of the Estadio Isidro Romero, to an area where it was dark. Once there, the National Police officers ordered the victim to get out of the car and took him around to the rear of the stadium (supra para. 34). Minutes later a shot was heard, and the alleged victim died. 94. Given the circumstances in which the events occurred and the actions of the police officers, particularly Second Lieutenant Rivera Enríquez, it is possible to infer that Mr. Aroca Palma would have suffered anguish, anxiety and fear given the real possibility that the events would culminate in his own death, in clear violation of his mental and moral integrity, enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention. 95. Therefore, even though Ecuador claimed in its defense that at the time of the events the State had policies in place designed to protect the right to personal integrity, it made no difference. B.4. General conclusion 96. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the Ecuadorian State is internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 7(1), 7(2), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma. VIII.2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, READ IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND ADOPT DOMESTIC REMEDIES 73 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 97. The Commission pointed out that, since human rights violations were involved, the facts of the case could not be regarded as “crimes committed in the line of duty.” Therefore, the investigation into the alleged victim’s death should have been conducted under the ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, since the case was dealt with by the police criminal jurisdiction, the State had violated the right to recourse to a competent, independent and impartial authority, and to an adequate, effective judicial remedy. 98. The Commission further argued that, while one of the police officers was convicted under the police criminal jurisdiction, the sentence was not executed. According to the information obtained, the person in question was “a fugitive,” as was another police officer involved in the events. If an ordinary court had been in charge of the proceedings, the case would have remained open indefinitely. The State failed to demonstrate that it had pursued the matter with all due diligence and within a reasonable time. In any event, since there was only a judgment delivered by a police court, Mr. Aroca Palma’s family was not guaranteed “clarification of the facts and [the] determination of the responsibilities of everyone involved.” 99. The Commission added that “to date a situation of impunity continues to prevail in relation to facts of the case,” as the domestic authorities failed in their duty “to guarantee an adequate investigation in order to identify and, if applicable, punish everyone responsible for the death” of the alleged victim, “and to enforce the only sentence imposed for his extrajudicial execution.” Therefore, the State had violated Articles 8(2) and 25(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the members of Mr. Aroca Palma’s family. 73 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 20