41 210. On this point, in the Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, the Court highlighted the jurisprudence of the European Court207 which establishes that whenever civil compensation is subject to the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the duty to investigate within a reasonable time “increases in light of the health condition of the person affected” since this person “requiring special care [the length of the proceedings] damages [...] the possibility of living a full life.” 208 211. Thus, in the Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, the Court considered that: the fact that the criminal proceeding has not been concluded has had specific consequences [...] since, under the legislation of the State, the civil reparation for the damages caused by a wrongful act that constitutes a crime may be subject to the establishment of a crime in a criminal action; therefore, no decision has been rendered by the trial court in the civil action for damages. In other words, the lack of justice in the criminal proceedings has prevented [receipt] of monetary compensation for the damage caused in the instant case. 209 212. In the same line, the European Court in the case of Oyal v. Turquía, referred to the right to an effective remedy with respect to the situation of HIV infections in the Red Cross of such country. In that case, the European Court highlighted the relevance of civil actions, joint or separate of the criminal actions, with the aim of establishing responsibilities and favor the granting pf the respective reparations. 210. 213. In the present case, it has been established that a criminal and civil action have been started. Similarly, in accordance with the legal system in Ecuador, the possibility of filing a civil suit depends on the results of the criminal trial. This depends specifically on the existence of a final criminal sentence. In TGGL’s case itself, the criminal proceedings were begun on September 29, 1998, and they were closed on February 28, 2005 with a decision declaring the proceedings time barred. For its part, the civil suit was started on March 5, 2002, and ended on May 18, 2006, with a judgment declaring the proceedings null and void, in the absence of an enforceable criminal sentence. 214. As a result of the foregoing, neither TGGL nor her mother has received any judicial protection whatsoever for the infection suffered. In accordance with the Ecuadorian legal framework, TGGL and her mother have been denied access to claim reparations for the damages suffered as a consequence of her infection, due to the fact that the criminal trial did not end with a final criminal sentence and is now timebarred. 215. In the Commission’s view, this situation per se represents a flagrant denial of justice, and, consequently, violates the rights to due process and judicial protection to the prejudice of TGGL and her mother. 216. Nevertheless, from a complete analysis of the criminal case file and the elements available from the civil suit, the Commission has identified a series of additional factors contributing to this situation of a denial of justice, both in terms of due diligence and reasonable time. 217. In the first place, the Commission notes that the criminal proceedings lasted nine years, and repeatedly displayed a lack of due diligence. As the case file shows, TGGL’s mother repeatedly urged the investigation forward, by offering evidence, including expert witnesses, and by repeatedly requesting that matters be advanced with due speed despite the delays associated with the production of evidence. The 207 Cfr. Laudon v. Germany. No. 14635/03. Fifth Section. Judgment of April 26, 2007, para. 72; Orzel v. Poland. No. 74816/01. Fourth Section. Judgment of June 25, 2003, para. 55, and Inversen v. Denmark. No. 5989/03. Fifth Section. Judgment of December 28, 2006, para. 70. 208 IA Court HR Case of Suarez Peralta v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 21 2013. Para. 103. 209 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, 210 Cr. EDH. Case of Oyal vs. Turkey. Application 4864/05. Judgment of March 23, 2010. Para. 66. para. 204.