13 73 following day, the accused lodged a complaint, seeking to have the amount of his bail reduced. On June 28, 2005, the complaint presented the judge with an additional complaint related to the delays in the 74 proceedings and his lack of dispatch. 54. On June 30, 2005, competence was assigned to the First Criminal Trial Court of 75 Guayas which, on July 5, 2005, returned the case to the First Criminal Committal Court since the 76 accused’s applications for the suspension of the preventive custody order had not been resolved. On July 28, 2005, the First Criminal Committal Court suspended the preventive custody order on the grounds 77 that the bail amount had been deposited. The complainant filed applications on August 23 and on 78 September 5 and 12, 2005, requesting that the public hearing be held. On September 8, 2005, the accused asked the First Criminal Trial Court of Guayas to rule that statutory limitations had been triggered, given that more than five years had passed since the issuing of the trial commencement 79 deed. 55. On September 20, 2005, the First Criminal Trial Court handed down a ruling on behalf of Emilio Guerrero finding that statutory limitations had been triggered since more than five years had passed since the trial commencement deed was issued against him, pursuant to the terms of Article 101 80 of the Criminal Code. As a result, the complainant requested that the applicable fine be imposed on the official of the judiciary, holding that the triggering of statutory limitations was due to the lack on dispatch 81 on the part of the judges, pursuant to the same Article 101 of the Criminal Code. That claim was denied, 82 with no grounds given (“inadmissible”), on November 10, 2005. 56. With reference to the victim’s health, the case file indicates that Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta’s health has not been restored; on the contrary, it has worsened, and she continues to suffer serious symptoms. It also shows that Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta has been hospitalized and 83 has undergone surgery on several occasions, without, to date, the State having investigated or 73 Annex 58. Document of September 24, 2004. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 185. 74 Annex 59. Document of June 28, 2005. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 187. 75 Annex 60. First Criminal Committal Court of Guayas, Document No. 2316-2000-JPPG of June 30, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Plenary Proceedings No. 136-05, p. 1. 76 Annex 61. First Criminal Committal Court of Guayas, Document No. 136-2005 of July 5, 2005. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 189. 77 Annex 62. Suspension of preventive custody order of July 28, 2005. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 191. 78 Annexes 63, 64, and 65. Documents of August 23 and September 5 and 12, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Plenary case file No. 136-05, pp. 5, 7, and 16, respectively. 79 Annex 66. Document of September 8, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Plenary Proceedings No. 136-05, p. 15. 80 Annex 67. First Criminal Trial Court of Guayas, Deed ruling statutory limitations of September 20, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Plenary Proceedings No. 136-05, p. 17. 81 Article 101 of the Criminal Code: “If statutory limitations are triggered as a result of a lack of timely dispatch on the part of the judges, they shall be punished by a fine imposed by the higher court […], without prejudice to the actions for damages admissible against such officials, pursuant to the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same penalty shall apply to officials of the prosecution service and court clerks as a result of whose negligence statutory limitations are triggered.” Annex 68. Document of September 22, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Plenary Proceedings No. 136-05, p. 18. 82 Annex 69. First Criminal Trial Court of Guayas, Document 136/2005 of November 10, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Plenary Proceedings No. 136-05, p. 19. 83 Following the operations, an abdominoplasty was performed on her on February 15, 2006. Annex 70. Certificate from Houston Memorial Clinic Medihouston S.A., February 5, 2009. Annex 8 of the petitioner’s submission received on December 14, 2009. During 2007, she received treatment on August 11 and 20, and on December 2, at the Family Medical Center (CE.ME.FA.) for stomach problems. Annex 71. Medical certificates. Annex 6 of the petitioner’s submission received on December 14, 2009. On August 17, she was treated for headaches at the Kennedy Clinic, Annex 72. Medical prescriptions. Annex 5 of the petitioner’s cont.