28 B.6. Length of the proceedings 93. The Court will now verify compliance with the judicial guarantee of a reasonable time. To do so, it must consider, in general terms, the entire length of the proceedings up to the delivery of the final judgment,145 although in certain situations it may be necessary to specifically evaluate its distinct stages.146 94. The Court finds it appropriate assess the length of the criminal judicial proceedings from the beginning of the process until September 23, 2005, when 14 soldiers were sentenced of 40 years of prison. With respect to how the proceedings developed, the Court considers it relevant to divide the period into two stages: (a) from when the military personnel were brought before the First Military Court of Jalapa, which occurred immediately after October 5, 1995, the date of the massacre, until April 12, 2000 when the Supreme Court annulled the judgment of December 6, 1999, which had convicted the ten soldiers and (b) from April 12, 2000 until September 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court confirmed the convictions handed down on July 8, 2004. 95. As to the first stage, the Court emphasizes that until the date of the convictions, the proceedings took about three and a half years, which a priori does not appear excessive. In addition, the Court did not find shortcomings to due diligence during that period, in which it did not note prolonged delays. The Court, therefore, considers that there was not an undue delay and that it is not necessary to examine each of the elements in its case law to determine the reasonability of the length of the proceedings.147 96. As to the second stage (supra para. 94), the Court notes that after the decision of April 12, 2000, in May of that year the case was transferred to the Trial Court of Cobán for a new trial. There is no evidence on the proceedings after that date, but it is recorded that on July 3, 2003 an oral trial began and then sentences were imposed on July 8, 2004. The Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements nor arguments to Article 8(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma, who was alive and who had suffered harm to his personal integrity, as did Victoria Vilcapoma Taquia, who had denounced the events (cf. Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 188 and the V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua case, supra, para. 271). In this case, there is no record that the family members of the injured persons denounced the events. However, Rigoberta Menchú presented a complaint domestically as a “querellante adhesiva” (supra para. 40) and petitioned the Commission together with various alleged victims on the impairment of the rights of diverse persons, including family members of the injured persons (cf. Communication of the petitioners received by the Commission on November 16, 1995 (evidence file, annex 4 to the Merits Report, fs. 28 to 48)). In addition, domestic judicial proceedings were initiated de officio and are related to an incident that affected a wide group of persons. Given the specificities of the case, it is not necessary for the purposes of this examination to consider whether each of the family members of the injured persons presented a complaint or in some other way had a connection with the domestic proceedings. The Court considers that there are sufficient reasons to assume a relevant interest of the family members of the injured persons in the progress of the investigation into the incident, as well as the impairment to their right due to the State’s failure to comply with its obligations. 145 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, paras. 105 and 106. 146 Cf. Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 403 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 106. 147 The case law of the Court has considered four elements in making a determination: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activities carried out by the interested party; c) the conduct of judicial authorities, and d) the impairment to the legal situation of the individual involved in the proceeding (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 Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 105).