123. Furthermore, in cases where death may have been the consequence of the use of force, the European Court has found that the “most careful scrutiny” must be used, taking into consideration “not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination.”124 Thus, “[a]ny deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.” 125 124. In the present case, the Commission notes that, given the circumstances in which Mr. Valencia Hinojosa lost his life, a criminal investigation was the only means by which to clarify the events and establish or discount the participation of police agents. Accordingly, the State had a duty to carry out an independent, impartial, diligent, and effective investigation within a reasonable time. 125. The scope and content of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection having thus been specified, the Commission will analyze the state's compliance with its obligations in the following order: (i) the independence and impartiality of the police authorities who conducted the investigation; (ii) due diligence in the investigation; and (iii) if the investigation into the events was carried out in a reasonable time. 1. Independence and impartiality of the police authorities in the investigation 126. The petitioners said that the use of the police jurisdiction to examine the investigation into the death of Mr. Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa and the criminal proceeding against the alleged culprits failed to satisfy the guarantees of independence and impartiality required by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. For its part, the State held that as the case concerned "the police's own legal interests" the police jurisdiction was applicable as it had statutory legal authority and tribunals established prior to the events. 127. Taking into account the submissions of the parties, the Commission next examines: (i) the regulatory framework governing the police courts at the time of the events; (ii) the proceedings in the police courts in the present case; and (iii) the international responsibility engaged by the use of the police jurisdiction in the investigation of the death of Mr. Valencia and the respective criminal proceeding. a. Regulatory framework governing the police courts at the time of the events 128. According to information furnished by the State, at the time of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa’s death, the competence of the police judges originate[d] from the Ecuadorian Constitution of 1984," which provides: Art. 131.- Members of the Security Forces enjoy a special jurisdiction and they may only be prosecuted or divested of their rank, honors and pension for the reasons and in the manner provided by law, except for the commission of common offenses, which shall be prosecuted in the regular justice system. 129. The State indicated that this special jurisdiction was reinforced by the National Civil Police Criminal Code, which provided that: The National Civil Police jurisdiction applies only to violations committed in the performance of the duties that pertain specifically to them as members of this institution, and for violations recognized in this Code and the Disciplinary Rules. The regular courts shall be competent to try all other offenses committed by members of the National Police, in any of its branches, applying the Common Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. 124 ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 27229/95, 3 April 1995, § 36. 125 ECHR , Milkhalkova and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 10919/05, 13 January 2011, § 42.