chin. Ms. Salazar was shot several times while in the vehicle. These circumstances caused them suffering, in a situation of great anxiety and fear. In addition, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of the next of kin of the persons named in the Merits Report (supra para. *) because they suffered harm to their psychological and moral integrity. 44. Additionally, pursuant to its acknowledgment of responsibility, Ecuador is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, set forth in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the aforementioned relatives of Mr. Huacón and Ms. Salazar, as a result of: i. The lack of sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality on the part of the police criminal judges, due to the “functional and administrative dependence of the police justice system on the Executive and the impossibility of requesting a judicial review in the ordinary jurisdiction”; the “manner in which [the police criminal judges] were appointed”; the “lack of sufficient guarantees of stability in their position”; and the “active service status of the majority of those intervening.” ii. The violation of the right to a competent authority, since the investigation should have been conducted in the ordinary jurisdiction, and not in the police criminal jurisdiction, as was done in the instant case, given that “since human rights violations were involved (specifically, violations of the right to life and personal integrity), there is no way the facts may be construed as offenses committed during the course of duties.” iii. The violation of due diligence and reasonable period of time, given the irregularities related to the police officers’ failure to hand over their weapons for ballistics reports; the failure to conduct a forensic examination of Mr. Huacón's car; and the fact that the investigation of officer J.C.B. remained open for more than 22 years after the facts took place. iv. The situation of impunity surrounding the facts of the case, and that the State “has failed to comply with its duty to conduct an adequate investigation with a view to identifying and, where applicable, punishing the persons responsible for the extrajudicial executions of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva.” VI REPARATIONS 19 45. In view of the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties to provide reparations to the victims in the instant case, which has been approved by this Court (supra paras. 25 and 26), and taking into account the significance and extent of the violations recognized by the State, the Court will now set forth the measures agreed upon and, where necessary, establish their scope and forms of execution, as well as details on supervising compliance with them. Moreover, as determined above (supra para. 31), this Court will establish reparations to the benefit of William Huacón. A) Injured party and other beneficiaries of the friendly settlement agreement 19 Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention in the context of approval of the friendly settlement agreement. 12