25. According to the State, in the instant case the discovery of the conditions in which the alleged victim died fit in the context of his belonging to the police service, of it having occurred in the performance of his functions, and that the persons involved were his colleagues in the police on active duty. The State focused its argument on the fact that the death of the alleged victim occurred when he was on active duty as a member of the National Police, in the course of which he became involved in a dispute with his captain and wounded the captain and a fellow police officer, from which it is deduced that the facts related to his death involved police activity. 26. The State argued that at the moment of the facts the Criminal Code of the Police was in force in Ecuador – it has since been repealed – and that it included, as crimes against life, homicide (homicidio) and murder (asesinato), among others. It stated that under this provision the members of the National Police could be convicted, with the due judicial guarantees, in the event of committing a crime against life. 27. The State noted that the alleged victim’s wife came forward as private accuser in both proceedings, before the regular jurisdiction and the police jurisdiction, and that the parties may appeal judges’ orders recusing themselves. It indicated that contrary to questioning the recusal on the part of the judge, the alleged victim’s wife, in her private accusation before the police jurisdiction, asked to amend the complaint so as to include other persons who may have been implicated in the death, and asked that testimony be taken and other procedural tools activated, which was done by the police judge. According to the State, the petitioners did not pursue the adequate remedy that was available to them domestically to exercise their rights. 28. The State alleged that one cannot invoke the exception of unwarranted delay to justify the failure to meet admissibility requirements. It indicated that on August 16, 1994, the police judge issued a reasoned ruling to dismiss the case with prejudice in favor of the persons implicated; and that one can deduce, based on an analysis of the witness evidence and the expert evidence, that the alleged victim committed suicide. It indicated that in keeping with the applicable legislation, that decision was forwarded for consultation to the First District Court of the Police, which vacated the proceedings from folios 328, when the alleged victim was said to have abandoned the private accusation, without the accused having expressly consented to that act. It indicated that after November 11, 196, the Second District Judge for the Police once again declared the matter dismissed with prejudice, and after the consultation, on March 5, 1997, the District Court for the National Police is said to have affirmed the dismissal of charges. It argued that the activity of the judges was efficient and that the process lasted four years, three months, and one day, which in the view of the State does not constitute unwarranted delay. 29. The Ecuadorian State added that by a judicial ruling in the police jurisdiction, charges were dismissed with prejudice against the members of the Police who could have been involved in the death of the alleged victim, and that the IACHR is not a court of appeals in which one analyzes the reasoning of the domestic law judges when handing down their judgments. 30. As regards the right to life, the State indicated that “the imposition of predicting the death of the alleged victim in its context is an impossible burden,” that the alleged victim was inebriated, that he had shot two of his colleagues and had fled, accordingly, requiring that the State adopt measures of prevention in respect of each possible risk of a violation of the right to life based on such human conduct, which is unpredictable, is utopian and disproportionate. The State focused its argument on the fact that, as appears from the facts in the proceeding, the alleged victim, inebriated, shot at a captain of the National Police prior to taking flight, which in the view of the State gave rise to a situation of risk that could not be foreseen or prevented. Accordingly, the only thing that the authorities could offer as a remedy is an investigation. In that regard, the State alleged that both in the regular jurisdiction and in the special jurisdiction, an effective investigation was initiated sua sponte to determine how the alleged victim died. 31. With respect to the right to due process, the State argued that the authority of the police jurisdiction stems from a constitutional and statutory mandate established prior to the police judge taking cognizance of the case involving the alleged victim. It emphasized that the police jurisdiction is determinant in judging members of the police on active duty. According to the State, despite being a special jurisdiction,