254. Hence, this Court considers that, by limiting the family’s access to the case file reopened by the Public Prosecution Service in 2007, for whatever reason, despite their status as victims, the State has failed to comply with its obligation to respect their right to take part in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court finds that the Dominican Republic violated the right of Mr. González Medina’s family to participate fully in the criminal investigation into the facts of this case and, therefore, violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. F) Reasonable time of the investigations 255. This Court has indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their family that everything necessary is done to discover the truth of what happened and to punish those responsible. 284 In this regard, the Court has considered four elements to determine the reasonableness of the time: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, 285 and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. 286 256. The Court has verified that, since the date that the Dominican Republic accepted the Court’s jurisdiction (supra para. 62) up until the date that this judgment is delivered, the investigations have lasted approximately 12 years and 11 months, during which no progress has been made in the inquiries or in the pre-trial investigation stage. In addition, during this period the investigations were archived for approximately four years and five months, from December 2002 to May 2007 (supra paras. 121 and 122). 257. The Court considers that, in principle, a prolonged delay, such as the one in this case, in itself constitutes a violation of judicial guarantees. 287 Nevertheless, the lack of reasonableness can be contested by the State if it explains and proves that the delay is directly related to the complexity of the case or the conduct of the parties to the case. 258. Based on the background information described when determining the proven facts, the Court recognizes that the matter under investigation by the competent authorities in this case is complex; owing partly to the many individuals possibly responsible and also to the inherent characteristics of forced disappearance (supra paras. 129 and 209), and this must be taken into consideration to assess the reasonableness of the time. 259. Regarding the second element, Luz Altagracia Ramírez and her children assumed an active position, with the collaboration of the “Truth Commission,” from the time Mr. González Medina disappeared and, particularly, with regard to the judicial investigation following the filing of the complaint that resulted in the opening of this investigation. Even though Mrs. Ramírez filed a complaint two days after Mr. González Medina’s disappearance, the judicial investigation resulting from the filing of this complaint did not start until a year later. Moreover, in May 2001, through their lawyer, Luz Altagracia Ramírez and her children 284 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 273. 285 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 273. 286 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 279, para. 155, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 273. 287 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 44, para. 145, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 145. 79