82. Following up on this information, on March 17, 1995, the investigators went to the home of SRM, but did not find her. They then tried to find her at her place of work, but failed to find her there either.136 83. In addition, in one of his statements, Mr. Gómez Virula’s father mentioned the name of someone who had threatened his son because the latter was his partner’s lover.137 Following this, the man named by Mr. Gómez Virula’s father was interviewed and he indicated that he did not know the alleged victim, that he had been a widower for 22 years, and that he did not have a permanent partner.138 84. The Court notes that the case file does not record whether the above indications refer to the same person. In addition, there is no record whether any other step was taken to evaluate this possible line of investigation. 85. Lastly, the Court underscores that, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that the deficiencies during the initial stage of the investigation were due to the inconsistencies in the different statements provided by the persons interviewed by the Public Prosecution Service and that, therefore, the Public Prosecution Service had “to archive the case file based on the relevant provisions of article 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” In this regard, the Court considers that the State should have investigated those possible inconsistencies; for example, questioning the deponents on the other hypotheses it had received. B.2 Reasonable time in the investigation 86. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice signifies that everything necessary must be done to discover the truth of what happened and to punish those responsible within a reasonable time. 139 The Court has indicated that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention should be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings undertaken until the final judgment is handed down.140 Accordingly, it is necessary to determine whether the failure to conclude the investigation was justified based on the circumstances of the case or whether it was due to an undue delay that can be attributed to the State.141 87. The Court has considered that a prolonged delay in the investigation, such as the one that occurred in this case, constitutes, in and of itself, a violation of the judicial guarantees.142 The Court notes that the investigative measures that the State conducted into the death of Mr. Gómez Virula began on March 19, 1995, and, to date, no one has been identified as the Cf. Report of the Missing Persons Investigation Section of the National Police of March 19, 1995 (evidence file, folio, 455), and Report of the Missing Persons Investigation Section of the National Police of March 20, 1995 (evidence file, folio 469). 136 Cf. Transcript of the statement by Mr. Gómez Virula’s uncle in the Report of the Public Prosecution Service of March 21, 1995 (evidence file, folio 701). 137 138 Cf. Report of the Public Prosecution Service of March 21, 1995 (evidence file, folios 701 and 702). Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 317, para. 267. 139 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Colindres Schonengerg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 116. 140 Cf. Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 117. 141 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 154. 142 23