17 In the same publicly actionable offenses, if prosecution has commenced before the end of those deadlines, statutory limitations shall apply to the continuation of the proceedings with the same deadlines, counting from the date on which the trial commencement deed was issued. Should the accused report voluntarily to the judiciary within a maximum period of six months following the start of the investigation, the corresponding deadlines shall be reduced to ten years for offenses punishable special lengthier imprisonment; to eight years for other offenses punishable by imprisonment; and to four years for offenses punishable by jail terms. In those cases, the deadlines shall be calculated from the date on which the investigation begins. This rule shall not apply in cases of recidivism. […] 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 of between forty-four and four hundred and thirty-seven United States dollars, 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. […] 65. Article 114 of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code provides that “statutory limitations may be declared applicable at the request of a party, or on an ex officio basis, necessarily, when the conditions set in this Code are met.” 66. Finally, Article 24 of the Ecuadorian Constitution of 1997 (dealing with the basic guarantees of due process) provided as follows: To ensure due process, the following basic guarantees shall be observed, regardless of any others established by the Constitution, international instruments, laws, or jurisprudence: […] 13. Resolutions by the branches of government affecting persons shall be duly grounded. A resolution shall be ungrounded if it fails to indicate the legal provisions or principles on which it is based and if it fails to explain the relevance of their application to the facts of the matter. In resolving a challenge lodged against a sanction, the situation of the appellant may not be worsened. C. Findings of law 67. The Commission’s task is to determine whether, in the case at hand, the Ecuadorian State offered effective access to justice in accordance with the standards for a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in the American Convention. It must also analyze the effectiveness of that access within the criminal trial conducted before the domestic courts. The Commission will not, however, analyze the individual actions of the citizens prosecuted for alleged medical malpractice against Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta; instead, it will make a determination on the possible existence of the State’s responsibility under its obligations in connection with Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention and in accordance with the general duties set out in Article 1.1 thereof. 1. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection in the criminal proceedings (Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1) 68. Article 8.1 of the American Convention provides that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 69. Similarly, Article 25 of the Convention establishes that: