126. The representative reproduced some parts of the Admissibility and Merits Reports and of the letter submitting the case. 127. Regarding judicial independence, the State referred to articles 69 and 70 of the Organic Law of the National Police, which established the way in which the NPCJ judges were appointed, the duration of the appointment (two years), and the possibility of re-election. It indicated that, in the instant case, the proceedings were heard by three judges who presided the NPCJ: Senior General MAD, General Byron Pinto Muñoz and, subsequently, Commander General JJR. It added that it had not been proved that the president of the NPCJ had been subjected to any type of pressure; therefore, it considered that it was independent in both its individual and institutional aspects. The State insisted that the trial was conducted in conformity with the basic guarantees of due process, starting with respect for the principle of innocence throughout the processing of the case, from the start of the investigations and until the guilty verdict was delivered against Messrs. Villarroel, Vinueza and Coloma, which was subsequently revoked in second and final instance by the NPCJ. It added that “the rulings delivered include[d] several relevant aspects that reveal[ed] not only the existence of a statement of reasons in the decisions but, above all, the evidence gathered during the proceedings […].” A.1.3. Reasonable time 128. The Commission alleged that the State had violated the reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention. It argued that the case was not of a special complexity that would justify the duration of three years and eight months of the criminal proceedings against the presumed victims. The Commission added that the NPCJ had based itself exclusively on the report of the Comptroller’s Office, which had been issued in 2001, and the NPCJ acquittal judgment was issued in September 2005. Regarding the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Commission noted that the case file did not reveal any probative procedures that would justify the delay in the decisions in the criminal proceedings. Indeed, periods of inactivity existed that the State had not justified. Regarding the actions of the presumed victims, the case file did not highlight any element that would indicate that the presumed victims had obstructed the proceedings or bore any responsibility for the delay. Lastly, the Commission considered that the continuation of the proceedings under the circumstances of this case – the prohibition of release due to detención en firme, the subsequent application of pre-trial detention and the deprivation of liberty of two of the presumed victims owing to the judgment convicting them – resulted in the continuation of the deprivation of liberty of the presumed victims. 129. The representative referred, in general, to the findings of the Inter-American Commission, without presenting specific arguments, and reproduced extracts from the Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Reports, and from the letter submitting the case. 130. The State argued that the criminal proceedings against the presumed victims, which were decided in their favor, lasted for 3 years and 6 months, a reasonable time in view of the number of defendants in the proceedings and the procedural activity of Messrs. Villarroel Merino, Cevallos Moreno, Coloma Gaibor, Vinueza Pánchez, López Ortiz and Ascázubi Albán. The facts revealed that they played an active role in the criminal proceedings, and filed the remedies they considered pertinent. The activity of the judicial authorities was, at no time, aimed at delaying the analysis of the remedies that were filed; to the contrary, despite the remedies of appeal, nullity, recusal, expansion and clarification, among others, the criminal proceedings were conducted satisfactorily. The defendants were able to present all the remedies they deemed pertinent. The State concluded that the evidence showed that criminal trial No. 36-PCJP-2002 instituted against the presumed victims respected due process in keeping with the standards established by the Court and, therefore, Article 8 of the Convention had not been violated. 33