the time of the facts, that jurisdiction was in force and it conducted and concluded the investigation against the presumed victims in violation of the guarantees of independence and impartiality. Even though this Court appreciates the legal amendments made by Ecuador, it notes that the aforesaid reform was not applied to the instant case. Therefore, the Court finds that, in addition, the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law in order to ensure access to an independent and impartial system of justice. 143. Consequently, the Court finds that the investigation of the presumed victims for the facts that have been described by the police criminal jurisdiction violated the guarantees of independence and impartiality established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán, Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez. 144. Finally, regarding the Commission’s arguments, reproduced by the representative, concerning the violation of the presumption of innocence, the duty to provide a statement of reasons, the right to appeal a judgment, and the reasonable time established in Article 8(1), 8(2) and 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, the Court considers that, having declared that the police criminal proceedings against the presumed victims was conducted by authorities who lacked independence and impartiality (supra paras. 141 and 143), the case refers to proceedings that were flawed from the outset and, therefore, it finds it unnecessary to make an additional analysis of the guarantee of competence or refer to other alleged violations of judicial guarantees. A.3. Conclusion 145. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the guarantees of independence and impartiality established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, in the investigation of the presumed victims for the facts that have been described by the police criminal jurisdiction, to the detriment of Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán, Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez. B. Compensation proceedings B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 146. The Commission took note that the presumed victims filed various claims for damages. In the case of Mr. Villarroel Merino, he filed a claim for compensation and a claim for damages before the President of the Republic, which were rejected due to lack of jurisdiction, and a claim for compensation before the Supreme Court of Justice, which was also rejected. The Commission concluded that it had insufficient information to rule on whether, when hearing these claims, the State had violated the right to judicial protection. In the case of Fernando López Ortiz and Amílcar Ascázubi Albán, it indicated that they had filed claims for compensation in the civil jurisdiction in 2008 and 2015, which had not been decided; thus, these proceedings had been underway for more than nine years. The Commission argued that this time was unreasonable, which resulted in a violation of the right to a prompt and simple remedy against violations of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Messrs. López Ortiz and Ascázubi Albán. 147. 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. 37