argue that the State did not conduct an effective investigation of Mr. Palma’s death, and therefore did not guarantee his right to life. 22. The petitioners state that all of these events were not investigated adequately, and that this generated unnecessary suffering for his family members over a period of more than three years. The family members had gone before judicial and military authorities to ask for information regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Palma, or “that they at least turn over the body so that he could be given a Christian burial.” They state that since the disappearance and death of Mr. Palma was not investigated until the truth was uncovered by an event that was not the result of any activity by the State, a violation of Mr. Palma’s family’s right to mental and moral integrity has occurred.5 23. The petitioners argue that the State violated Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention due to the fact that, once a writ of habeas corpus was presented, the state agencies should have been activated to determine whether Mr. Palma could be found in penitentiary, police, and military establishments. Instead, the family received a negative response from the army in which they told him that Mr. Palma was not in a particular military establishment. 24. In terms of the right to a fair trial, the petitioners point out that more than five years passed between the time that Mr. Palma’s dead body was discovered (May 26, 1997) and the time when the guilty verdict was issued by the Supreme Court of Justice (June 26, 2002), and that this is not a reasonable period of time. The petitioners state that the matter was not a complex one in that Mr. Palma’s body appeared only a few days after his disappearance. They also argue that his murderers were former members of the FAE and were seen by their colleagues who could have identified them. They state that the conduct of Mr. Palma’s family, and especially that of his mother Perfelita Mendoza Aguayo, was that of consistently promoting investigation, while the behavior of the judicial authorities was negligently deficient since they did not conduct an effective investigation. As a result, they maintain that the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 25. In terms of the requirement established by Article 46(1) of the Convention that all domestic remedies be exhausted, the petitioners indicate that they exhausted domestic remedies in this case. They presented a writ of habeas corpus, which was exhausted in the courts of first instance. The petitioners indicate that since habeas corpus was the appropriate recourse that had to be exhausted and since there is no Ecuadorian legislation for any other effective recourse for locating a detained or disappeared person, domestic remedies were therefore exhausted. 26. In sum, the petitioners maintain that the State has violated Article 4 in relationship to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza, and Articles 5, 7(6), 8(1), and 25(1) in relationship to Article 1(1) of that instrument to the detriment of Mr. Palma’s family members. They also maintain that all of the available remedies for internal jurisdiction have been exhausted and that, therefore, the case should be declared admissible. The petitioners are also requesting that the IACHR order the Ecuadorian State to pay appropriate compensation to Mr. Palma’s family members and that it order the immediate implementation of an operations manual for investigating murders that would include protocols for autopsies and crime scene investigation, in conformance with the United Nations Manual for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extrajudicial, Arbitrary, and Summary Executions. 5 Petitioners refer to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decision in The Massacre of Mapiripán Vs. Colombia. Merits ,Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Ser. C. No. 134. para. 284.