under the police criminal jurisdiction because the case could not be tried under the ordinary jurisdiction. This Court was not informed of the progress of the proceedings against officer EPYE, also a member of the National Police, under the same criminal police jurisdiction. Nor is there information about the proceedings brought under the ordinary jurisdiction against the Metropolitan Police officer and the driver of the patrol car used on the day of the events. 106. Therefore, with regard to the only proceedings that resulted in a conviction, the Court holds, based on the precedents cited and viewed from an institutional perspective, that the police criminal jurisdiction did not offer guarantees of independence and impartiality. 78 As a result, the very operation of the special jurisdiction constituted a violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. In addition, the only person found responsible for what occurred did not serve the sentence imposed on him because he failed to appear at the trial and the authorities then failed to take action to ascertain his whereabouts. Instead, former Second Lieutenant Rivera Enríquez simply waited for the statute of limitations to expire and asked the corresponding court to acknowledge that it no longer had jurisdiction. This resulted in the violation of the right to access to justice of the members of Mr. Aroca Palma’s family. 107. The Court also recalls that under Article 2 of the American Convention States are required to adapt their domestic legislation in order to guarantee the rights and freedoms enshrined therein. 79 The Court takes note of the fact that, in 2008, Ecuador adopted a new Constitution which abolished the police jurisdiction. However, it underscores that, at the time of the facts, that jurisdiction was in force, and it conducted and concluded the investigation against the presumed victims in violation of the guarantees of independence and impartiality. Even though this Court appreciates the legal amendments made by Ecuador, it notes that the aforesaid reform was not applied to the instant case. Therefore, the Court finds that, in addition, the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law in order to ensure access to an independent and impartial system of justice. 80 108. The Court has noted the fact that the case of Mr. Aroca Palma’s death was included in the final report of the Truth Commission, where it was described as an “extrajudicial execution.” Likewise, following the report’s release, the Public Prosecution Service began investigating the case for the alleged commission of the crimes of torture, illegal deprivation of liberty and extrajudicial execution, and the investigation remains open. Without denying the efforts that the competent authorities are making with regard to this matter, Ecuador’s international responsibility remains the same. The work of the Truth Commission and the Public Prosecution Service’s investigation of the case do not alter the fact that the violations took place. 109. Therefore, the Ecuadorian State is internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the following members of Joffre Aroca’s family: Winston Aroca Melgar, father; Perla Palma Sánchez, mother; Cynthia Aroca Palma, sister; Ronald Aroca Palma, brother; Amalia Melgar Solórzano, paternal grandmother, and Amalia Antonieta Aroca Melgar, paternal aunt. Cf. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 115, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 141. 79 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, para. 138. 80 Cf. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 118, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 142. 78 22