21 c) On November 29, 2001, two days after the investigation was closed, the complainant filed a formal accusation against Jenny Bohórquez who, as stated in her own testimony, was the lead surgeon on the operation during which Ms. Suárez Peralta was injured (supra IV A). However, there is no record of either the court or the prosecution service taking any steps in 105 connection with the complainant’s application. d) On May 13, 2002, five months after the second reopening of the investigation was concluded, the First Criminal Prosecutor of Guayas requested the voiding of all the proceedings since the investigation was expanded to cover Wilson Minchala, even though that had taken 106 place nine months earlier (supra IV B). e) It was not until February 17, 2003, fourteen months after the investigation was closed, that the judge issued a resolution against Emilio Guerrero and, since he was a fugitive from justice, the proceedings were suspended until such time as he appeared or was captured (supra 107 IV B). f) There is no evidence indicating that the State took any steps to apprehend the fugitive defendant, in spite of the terms of Article 254 of the CCP, where the plenary phase was to be 108 suspended “until the accused is apprehended or appears voluntarily” (supra IV B). g) On February 24, 2003, Emilio Guerrero filed an appeal, which the Third Specialized 109 Chamber for Criminal, Collusion, and Traffic Matters took 16 months to resolve, notwithstanding Article 350 of the CCP, which required such remedies to be resolved with a 110 period of 15 days. 84. In light of this, the Commission notes the passive role of the prosecution service and the lack of diligence of the judge in the case at hand. The investigation was opened to investigate “Emilio Guerrero Gutiérrez, plus accomplices or accessories after the fact” in the crime allegedly committed against Ms. Suárez Peralta. However, in the five years that went by, few procedural formalities were carried out, in spite of the complainant’s constant requests, and neither the chief defendant or his possible accomplices were subjected to an effective investigation. 85. It is worth noting that one of the procedural acts that were practiced was the verification 111 of the working situation of Mr. Emilio Guerrero; as a result, it was verified that Guerrero Gutiérrez had 105 See: Annex 36. Request for investigation to be extended to Jenny Bohórquez, October 29, 2001; and Annex 39. Statement of Jenny Bohórquez, November 13, 2001. 106 See: Annex 21. Order expanding the investigation to cover Wilson Minchala, August 14, 2001; Annex 27. Declaration of conclusion of investigation, September 19, 2001; and Annex 46. Prosecutor’s ruling of May 13, 2002. 107 See: Annex 48. Resolution of February 17, 2003. 108 The case file indicates that while Mr. Guerrero was a fugitive from justice, he requested the replacement of the preventive custody order with alternative precautionary measures and the granting of bail; this request was granted four days later. See: Annex 53. Document of September 17, 2004; and Annex 54. Document of September 21, 2004. 109 See: Annex 50. Appeal remedy of February 24, 2003; and Annex 52. Document of the Third Specialized Chamber for Criminal, Collusion, and Traffic Matters of June 29, 2004. 110 Ecuadorian CCP of 1983, Art. 350: Deadline for resolving remedies: In the event of an appeal against the ruling described in the first three sections of Article 348, once the proceedings have been received by the corresponding superior court, it shall resolve the remedy on the merit of the documents within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the proceedings were received.” should it fail to resolve it within the period indicated, any of the parties in the proceedings may request the Prosecutor General to impose a fine equal to half the general minimum wage on each of the negligent judges.” 111 Anexo 10. Oficios de diligencias. Anexo 1 a la petición inicial recibida el 23 de febrero de 2006, Expediente de la Instrucción Fiscal No. 2316-2000 entre fojas 27, 37 y 54.