47 joined the criminal case as civil parties and submitted several procedural motions during the process. Similarly, relatives of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Salomón Peceros Pedraza cooperated with the nine studies performed on the remains in 2001. 210. Taking into account the foregoing, the IACHR finds that there was a violation of the reasonable time period in the criminal proceeding in the case under study. 211. Moreover, the Commission observes that despite evidence in the case file concerning obstruction by the military judge, the latter has never been prosecuted. It is also telling that no member of the military has been prosecuted as a triggerman in the execution of Eduardo Nicolás Sánchez, and all of the commandos who participated in the Operation were absolved in relation to the executions of Víctor Salomón Cruz Sánchez and Herma Luz Meléndez Cruz. 212. With respect to an effective remedy, the Commission emphasizes that the State sent part of the examination of the facts to the military jurisdiction where the proceeding was conducted in secrecy and the relatives were unable to participate. In the ordinary court jurisdiction, fourteen years after the events and ten years after the case was opened, there has not been a single conviction. Therefore, the Commission finds that the State has not guaranteed them an effective judicial remedy. 213. Based on the discussion presented in this chapter, the Commission concludes that in the instant case, the competent authorities failed to respect the judicial guarantees to which the relatives of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Salomón Peceros Pedraza were entitled, and did not provide them with an effective remedy to guarantee a fair trial, a determination of the truth of what happened, and the investigation, identification, prosecution and where warranted, punishment of the direct perpetrators and masterminds of the execution of those individuals. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to due process guarantees and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty, to the detriment of Florentín Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza, Jenifer Solange Peceros Quispe, Herma Luz Cueva Torres, Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña and Lucinda Rojas Landa, relatives of the victims of extrajudicial execution. 3. Failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic provisions (Article 2 of the American Convention), in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of that instrument 214. The Commission also considers that the facts surrounding the extrajudicial execution of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza amount to a failure to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention to the detriment of their next of kin. In this sense, while the Inter-American Commission did not pronounce on the alleged violation of that article in its admissibility report, it has been substantiated by the information and documentation provided by the parties during the processing of the instant case, and the State has had the opportunity to defend itself and to present any relevant pleadings and in fact, did so during the public hearing when it referred to its domestic jurisdiction on this point. Therefore, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission will develop its considerations on this point. 215. Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State to adjust its domestic law in keeping with the provisions of the former in order to guarantee the rights enshrined therein, which implies that the measures of domestic law must be effective (principle of effet 213 utile). 213 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2009, para. 288, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Merits. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26, para. 68; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 55.