arrest, the public defenders of several of those arrested denounced the excessive use of force by the police who carried out the arrest. In particular, the defender of Mr. Blas Valencia asked the judge in the case to observe that the alleged victim was battered. The records also show that when one of the defense attorneys tried to denounce acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, the Eighth Criminal Trial Judge interrupted him saying, “I will ask the gentleman attorney that he limit his defense to the matter of the precautionary measures.” 6 57. Moreover, the Commission notes that throughout the process, particularly in the pleadings and evidence presented by several of the defendants during the month of August 2002, as well as in the filing of motions for appeal and cassation in June and September 2003, respectively, the illegal raids were reported, along with illegally obtained evidence, acts of torture, solitary confinement, and other acts that the alleged victims believed violated their right to humane treatment, both at the time of their arrest and subsequently at Judicial Technical Police stations. The evaluation and examination of evidence was also sought with regard to this matter, including statements by forensic physicians of the District Superior Court, as well as videos and photographs.7 58. Notwithstanding the above, in the matter alleged by the State it was not until May 2003—through the conviction handed down in the court of first instance—that a criminal investigation was ordered into the purported suggestions of torture. Based on the information available, this investigation has produced no results because, in the words of the State, the alleged victims did not provide evidence in a timely manner. 59. The Commission reiterates that in cases in which there is an indication or reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment have been committed, it is up to the State to undertake an official criminal investigation, without being able to excuse itself based on the victims’ lack of diligence in providing the relevant proof. 60. In this context, the Commission concludes that the fact that almost seven years have passed since the events took place—with the State having made no progress in the investigation toward verifying the legality, necessity, and proportionality of the use of force in this case and determining the possible occurrence of acts of torture, having had knowledge through various media outlets of what happened—constitutes an unjustified delay under Article 46.2 c) of the American Convention. 61. In terms of the purported violations of due process alleged by the petitioner, although the State contended that at the time the petition was filed— January 8, 2003— criminal proceedings against the alleged victims were still underway, throughout the proceedings these circumstances were changing. The accused were convicted and the motions they filed for appeal and cassation were declared inadmissible; accordingly, they are still serving the sentences that were imposed. The Commission believes it is pertinent to reiterate that in situations in which the facts evolve throughout the admissibility process, the analysis of compliance with the respective requirements should be done based on the situation in effect at the time of the declaration of admissibility.8 6 Annex provided by the State on May 16, 2007. “Records of statements of the accused— Prosegur Case—Volumes 1 and 2.” 7 Annex provided by the State on May 16, 2007. “Records of statements of the accused— Prosegur Case—Volumes 1 and 2.” 8 I/A Court H.R., Report No. 20/05. Case 714/00 (Rafael Correa Díaz), February 25, 2005, Peru, para. 32; IACHR, Report No. 25/04, Case 12.361 (Ana Victoria Sánchez Villalobos et al.), 10