70 State to explain and prove why it has required more time than would be reasonable, in principle, to deliver a final judgment in a specific case.388 305. The reasonability of the time period referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be analyzed as a function of the total duration of the criminal process.389 In keeping with Article 8(1) of the American Convention and with respect to the specific circumstances of this case, the Commission will consider the four factors that the Court has used in its recent case law, which are: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.390 306. The State alleged that the delay in the case was due to its complexity, since multiple persons were involved in the various events alleged in the case. Nevertheless, the State did not elaborate on just how those factors might have influenced the delay in the case. 307. As the Court wrote, a delay in an investigation cannot be justified by the complexity of the matter when i) possible perpetrators have been identified; ii) it has been verified that there were 391 witnesses to the event, and iii) there are possible lines of investigation. In any event, for the complexity argument to prosper, the State must show specific information linking the complexity of the case to its delay. In the instant case, the Commission has already mentioned the long periods of inactivity in this case, including the fact that the case file was missing for more than six years, factors that have nothing to do with the complexity alleged by the State. 308. As for the participation of the interested parties in the proceedings in this case, the Commission observes that family members and witnesses came forward to make statements in the case. Furthermore, their legal representatives were named civil parties to the case, and thus followed and helped drive the investigation, filing repeated complaints about the delay in the proceedings and the long periods of procedural inactivity. 309. As for the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission has already observed that there was no sustained momentum in the investigations. November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par.85; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par.160. 388 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par.142. 389 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par.129; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par.104; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par.168. See also: IACHR, Report No. 77/02, Case 11,506, Merits, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos, Paraguay, December 27, 2002, par. 76. 390 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, par.164. 391 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, par.275.