279. As for the third element, in relation to the investigation of the searches of the homes, there was a delay in receiving the statements of witnesses and of the alleged perpetrators, especially the police agents implicated, who came forward to testify three years later; in complying with procedures ordered such as the delivery of the logbooks, and in making a technical inspection of the homes, which did not take place until February 2005 (supra paras. 201 and 203). Additionally, there was a period of more than a year in which the authorities did not take any measures. Five years after the incident, information was provided on procedures that had been requested from the start, and eight years after the incident, the facts had still not been clarified. 280. Regarding the conduct of the authorities in charge of the investigation of the death of Narciso Barrios, the Court notes that although the Prosecutor ordered the necessary procedures to clarify the facts promptly, the authorities responsible for them delayed implementation (supra para. 234). Thus, the interviews with key witnesses such as Nestor Caudi Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, who witnessed what happened, took place five months after the incident (supra paras. 206, 207 and 209). In addition, other measures were not implemented promptly, such as: (a) the planimetric survey that was conducted nearly to year after the facts and after several requests; (b) the firearms assigned to the Barbacoas Police Station were forwarded so that the pertinent appraisals could be carried out almost a year after the events occurred, and (c) the ballistic evidence extracted from the victim’s body was not sent for the corresponding appraisal until almost two months after his death, without any reason being given for this delay (supra paras. 205, 207 and 209). 281. Furthermore, the Court has verified that, following the Prosecutor’s conclusive decision, the Court of First Instance delayed the preliminary hearing on several occasions and, subsequently, the Second Trial Court delayed almost nine months in installing a court to open the public and oral proceedings. The trial was postponed until 2011; in other words, almost five years later (supra para. 212). 282. Since the death of Narciso Barrios, when the preliminary inquiry in the case began, to date, nearly eight years have passed and the criminal case continues to be processed in the domestic sphere, without a judgment, and with no record of the detention of the alleged authors, who have already been identified. 283. With regard to the conduct of the authorities in the investigation of the detention of the members of the Barrios-Ravelo family and the violent acts against them, it has already been proved that there was a delay in implementing several procedures (supra para. 234), such as: the statements of the officials implicated were taken more than two years after the incident, and those of some victims nine months after the incident, and the logbook was requested also nine months after the incident, and two years later was still being required (supra paras. 217 and 218). The Court emphasizes that more than four years passed at the investigation stage to implement the above-mentioned procedures, up until the request was made to dismiss the case. 284. Regarding the fourth element, which refers to the effects of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of those involved, the Court considers, as it has previously,375 that it is not necessary to analyze this to determine the reasonableness of the duration of the investigations mentioned above. 375 Cf. Case of Garibaldi, supra note 220, para. 138. 90