perpetrator and the truth of what happened has not been determined. On this basis, the Court will analyze whether a delay in the investigation of more than 24 years is justified. 88. The Court has established the following elements in order to determine whether the time is reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the effects generated on the legal situation of the person concerned. The Court recalls that it is for the State to justify, based on the said criteria, why it has required the time that has elapsed to deal with the case and, if it does not do so, the Court has broad powers to make its own assessment in this regard. 143 89. In the instant case, 24 years have passed since Mr. Gómez Virula’s death without the State clarifying what happened to the alleged victim, or acting with the necessary due diligence to make it possible to clarify this (supra paras. 67 to 85). Furthermore, the State has not provided a reasonable justification for the duration of the investigation. Therefore, the Court concludes that the judicial authorities exceeded the reasonable time for the process. B.3 Conclusion 90. On the basis of all the preceding considerations, the Court concludes that the State failed to act with due diligence to investigate the alleged victim’s disappearance, even though it knew that he was a leading member of a labor union engaged in a conflict in his place of work. Moreover, when his body was found, it again failed to act with the necessary due diligence to preserve the scene of the crime or to gather probative elements during the initial procedures, and the autopsy does not demonstrate that a rigorous examination of the corpse was performed. Added to foregoing, the lines of investigation were not exhausted diligently, because the available information reveals a failure to take the necessary steps to investigate those possibly responsible. Lastly, the Court has verified that the investigation of the facts has not respected the guarantee of a reasonable time. 91. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula, Antonio Gómez Areano and Paula Virula Dionicio. VII-3 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY’S RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY144 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 92. The Commission concluded that the State had “disregarded its obligation to investigate and to punish the acts” that breached Mr. Gómez Virula’s rights, thereby violating the right to personal integrity of the members of the alleged victim’s family who had the right to know the truth of what happened to the victim. The representatives indicated that members of Mr. Gómez Virula’s family experienced “pain, fear, suffering and anguish” owing to the victim’s disappearance and subsequent death. Added to this, they argued that the lack of a specific and effective investigation into the disappearance and death of Mr. Gómez Virula gave rise to “anguish, frustration and a feeling of impotence,” that continues owing to the impunity surrounding the case. They argued that, in addition to the mental and moral suffering, the members of Mr. Gómez Virula’s family also endured physical pain and suffering because the victim’s mother suffered panic attacks and was later diagnosed with diabetes. The State Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 155. 143 144 Article 5 of the American Convention. 24