The actions of the State – in terms of its lack of diligence with regard to the application for habeas corpus (Article 28 of the Constitution in force at the time), which led to its ineffectiveness, and the delegation of jurisdictional powers to the mayor, which constitutes per se an incompatibility between the Ecuadorian law applied in this case and the American Convention – resulted in a violation of the victims’ right to have access to a simple and effective recourse for the protection of their fundamental rights in the terms of Articles 25 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, the latter in accordance with the iura novit curiae principle. 68. Regarding the discontinuance, the Commission considered that it “cannot be used […] as an excuse in order not to comply with the obligation to investigate, ex officio, any violent death” and that, “as soon as the State authorities become aware of the facts, they must initiate, ex officio, and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation using all available legal means.” Consequently, the Commission indicated that: In the instant case, the punishments that have been imposed to date, are limited to the perpetrators of the facts […] and the State abstained from investigating thoroughly [the information concerning the possible masterminds] before ordering the stay of proceedings with regard to a group of accused. In addition, it stressed that “the grounds for the stay of proceedings was not the diligent exhaustion of the possible logical lines of investigation and the material impossibility of gathering more evidence owing to the complexity of the case, [but rather it was] the discontinuance by some of the next of kin.” Consequently, the Commission indicated that “the State took on the investigation merely in response to a ‘measure taken by private interests’ in violation of the obligation to advance the investigation ex officio.” 69. For their part, the representatives considered proved that the State “did not investigate the facts opportunely in order to prevent [Mr.] Palma’s death, and that it did not act diligently in carrying out the criminal proceedings, resulting in a delay in deciding the case, all to the detriment of the family that sought justice.” In this regard, they indicated that, after Lidia Bravo had filed the formal complaint about the events on May 17, 1997, and the XIth Judge of Manabí had ordered the police to conduct the investigation, there was a failure to “investigate military personnel [that] was fundamental,” owing to their presence near the SECAP, the place where Mr. Palma Mendoza was deprived of his liberty. In this regard, they noted that “the police report of May 23, 1997, is very clear in establishing that, even though the appearance of military personnel to give testimony was requested, this did not happen.” They added that, when Mr. Palma Mendoza’s body “appeared, […] the State agents did nothing to identify the corpse and open an investigation to determine the circumstances of his death” and that “[t]he State did nothing to elucidate the facts, even though, in 1998, it was informed that a woman […] had reported that [Mr.] Palma [Mendoza] was murdered by [Lenin Ordóñez].” They indicated that the State did not comply with its “obligation to promote the judicial investigation to identify and punish both the perpetrators and the masterminds within a reasonable time.” In this regard, they underscored that: “the decision on the stay of proceedings was bas[ed] on the fact that, in the criminal proceedings there was no evidence of the responsibility of the accused as masterminds of the abduction and subsequent murder of Marcos Palma, [but] that evidence did not have to be provided by [his] family members […] but rather the State […] should have acted ex officio.” They also indicated that “[f]or the State, the version given by Lenin Ordóñez was credible […] only with regard to the perpetrators […], but not […] with regard to the masterminds.” 70. The representatives indicated that “the State was not able to grant the victims’ next of kin an effective judicial remedy that, within a reasonable time, [would have permitted] the investigation, identification and punishment of all those responsible for the abduction and subsequent murder. In addition, they noted that “[a]t the time of the investigation, there 24