300. Likewise, the case file before this Court does not reveal that, in the criminal proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court, the hearing requested by the Trujillo Prosecutor in order to receive the statement of Marcos Bonifacio Castillo, only witness in the case, as pre-trial evidence, and ordered for August 18, 2011, was actually held. In addition, the Court notes that, since 2010, both the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor and the Trujillo Prosecutor have requested the exhumation of Félix Ordóñez Suazo’s body in order to perform the respective autopsy. However, even though this request was submitted to the Regional Director of Forensic Medicine on two occasions as an urgent matter, and even though the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor has repeated his requests for information about this procedure on four occasions, the exhumation of the body remains pending to date (supra paras. 146 to 148). 301. The Court notes that more than eight years after the facts, the criminal proceedings are at the investigation stage before the Trial Court and no relevant procedures have been conducted. In this regard, it considers that a prolonged delay, such as the one in this case, constitutes – in principle - a violation of judicial guarantees, thereby contravening the reasonable time. 320 302. Based on the foregoing, the Court has verified that, at the start of the investigation into the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo, significant evidence was not collected, and no relevant procedures have been conducted subsequently at the judicial level; therefore, the State failed to conduct a thorough and diligent investigation. All of this has resulted in a serious breach of the duty to investigate the facts, which could also affect the immediacy of the evidence, the possibility of obtaining reliable information, and the loss of evidence or the impossibility of collecting it, owing to the passage of time. The Court considers that these omissions and irregularities prove that the State failed to take effective measures during the investigations and criminal proceedings in the case. The Court also concludes that the State failed to comply with the reasonable time due to the existence of procedural delays in the prosecution of the case. Consequently, the Court considers that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Félix Ordóñez Suazo and the members of the Punta Piedra community. B.2.2. 2010 complaints concerning land usurpation and threats and also abuse of authority to the detriment of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members 303. The Court has verified that, on April 13 and 16 and October 19, 2010, the Punta Piedra community, through its development association, filed three complaints, respectively: (a) for usurpation owing to the invasion of lands belonging to the community and for threats by the Rio Miel “ladinos or outsiders” as a result of the land conflict; (b) for perpetration of the offense of proffering death threats against Paulino Mejía, a member of the Punta Piedra community, by three individuals from Rio Miel, and (c) for perpetration of the presumed offense of abuse of authority when investigating the presumed construction of a highway that cut through the territory of 320 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 Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 217. 85