100. The representative contended that the State’s responsibility had been fully demonstrated, as confirmed by Article 2 of the Law for the Reparation of Victims, which establishes that the State “recognizes that the victims suffered unjustifiable violations against their life, liberty, integrity and dignity.” 74 101. The State maintained that the Commission’s argument was contradictory, since “on the one hand […] it is calling for […] investigation and punishment, and on the other, efforts to enforce the punitive measure or sentence against the person responsible for the crime.” It noted that the criminal investigation at the domestic level had resulted in the conviction of the perpetrator. In addition, the National Police took disciplinary action against one of the agents involved (relieving him of his position), while the second lieutenant had been dismissed from the ranks of the police. 102. It further alleged that, based on the Truth Commission’s report, the Public Prosecution Service was engaged in a “complex comparison of documents [...] aimed at gathering material elements for the case.” Ecuador “confirms its willingness to undertake an investigation […] in keeping with inter-American human rights standards in the context of serious human rights violations.” It stated that “there are no concordant, consistent or visible elements that make it possible to conclude that violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection were committed.” B. Considerations of the Court 103. The Court has reiterated that, pursuant to the American Convention, States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all of this under the general obligation of those States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention for all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 75 104. The Court recalls that in the case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, whose conclusions were reiterated in the case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, it found that the police criminal jurisdiction in Ecuador, during the time in which it was in force, did not form part of the Judiciary, but was functionally and administratively dependent on the Executive. 76 Also, in that case, the Court concluded: The functional and administrative dependence of the police justice system on the Executive and the impossibility of requesting a judicial review by the ordinary jurisdiction did not guarantee the institutional independence and impartiality of the police jurisdiction. In addition, the relationship of subordination and the chain of command characteristic of the National Police did not offer sufficient guarantees of the personal or individual independence and impartiality of the police criminal judges owing to the way in which they were appointed; the absence of sufficient guarantees of stability in the post (especially in the district courts, where the judges were freely appointed and removed and, as in this case, had competence to determine whether or not a case continued); and the status of officers on active duty of most of those involved (which resulted in the possibility that the district judges, for example, had to investigate higher-ranking officers or their own peers). 77 105. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez of the National Police was investigated, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced Argument put forward in the final written arguments. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 82. 76 Cf. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, para. 113, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2021. Series C No. 430, para. 138. 77 Cf. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 114, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 138. 74 75 21