148. The State argued that the presumed victims were able to access the jurisdictional authorities under the administrative dispute procedure to claim payment of compensation for damage and even for reparation of non-pecuniary damage if they considered that the acts or omissions of the judge or judges who heard their cases had generated an unjustified delay or an inadequate administration of justice, or a violation of the right to effective protection and to due process or, in general, had committed a judicial error. This remedy could be exercised by an action filed in keeping with the procedural rules established by law; in other words, filed before a judge of administrative disputes in their domicile pursuant to article 217 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, in order to sue the president of the Judicial Council as the person with legal liability and follow the procedure for administrative actions, taking into account the four-year statute of limitations for this action. In addition, the State mentioned that, as noted in Merits Report No. 113/18 of the Commission, Mr. Villarroel Merino filed this remedy in the domestic sphere, but using the wrong type of procedure, so that the action was unsuccessful due to the disqualification of the police court. B.2. Considerations of the Court 149. The Court notes that the Commission mentioned various claims for compensation filed by the presumed victims. In particular, it referred to: (i) a claim for compensation and a claim for damages filed by Mr. Villarroel Merino; (ii) claims for compensation and an administrative claim filed by Mr. Ascázubi Albán, and (iii) a claim for compensation filed by Mr. López Ortiz. 150. Regarding the claim for compensation and the claim for damages filed by Mr. Villarroel Merino, the Commission argued that it had insufficient information to rule on whether, when hearing these claims, the State violated the right to judicial protection. In this regard, the Court notes that the Inter-American Commission merely mentioned the claims and did not present arguments to substantiate a presumed violation of judicial protection, and neither did the presumed victims’ representative. Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient information to rule in this regard. 151. According to the information provided to the Court, in the case of Mr. Ascázubi Albán, the Court notes that the body of evidence contains various official communications related to the filing of two claims for compensation; one before the Thirteenth Civil Court of Pichincha, and the other before the National Police Court of Justice. Regarding the former claim, a judicial decision issued by the Thirteenth Civil Court of Pichincha and dated September 1, 2010, indicates: “in view of the stage of the case, the proceedings will be reviewed in order to deliver judgment.” The body of evidence also contains an administrative complaint filed by Mr. Ascázubi Albán and a judicial decision of February 8, 2007, of the Alternate President of the Supreme Court of Justice, in which he required that the proceedings be forwarded to the President to continue the legal process (supra para. 66). 152. In the case of Mr. López Ortiz, the body of evidence contains a brief he filed relating to a “claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages against the Ecuadorian State represented by the Ecuadorian Attorney General, […,] and the Police Institution,” and also a communication of the District Court for Administrative Disputes of the Metropolitan District of Quito, province of Pichincha, dated November 8, 2018, indicating that the plaintiff’s request for judgment would be dealt with in the chronological order in which the case was received (supra para. 67). 153. In this regard, the Court notes that, when submitting the case, the Commission indicated that the aforementioned procedures had been ongoing for more than nine years, because Messrs. López Ortiz and Ascázubi Albán had filed the said claims in the civil jurisdiction in 2008 and in 2015 they had not been decided. The representative did not present arguments in this regard, and the 38