filed a brief before the Investigating Judge, presenting a “reiteration of the complaint,” in which they emphasized items of evidence which they considered should be analyzed in the investigation. Three months later, the Investigating Court issued the decisions that concluded the pre-trial investigation for which it was responsible (supra paras. 118 and 119). In addition, the said judicial decisions and the report of the National District Prosecutor reveal that, on numerous occasions, Luz Altagracia Ramírez and her children came forward to give testimony in the said investigation and in its reopening by the Public Prosecution Service. 260. Regarding the conduct of the authorities, this Court has already established the lack of due diligence of the judicial authorities in the development of these investigations (supra paras. 220 to 249). In addition, the State has not proved that the prolonged delay of 12 years and 11 months cannot be attributed to the conduct of its authorities. To the contrary, when testifying at the public hearing before this Court, the Investigating Judge Eduardo Sánchez Ortiz explained that, when he was responsible for the investigation of the case of Narciso González Medina , “during the year [… he] had, for example, 300 or 500 cases; […] I had to investigate those 500 cases in addition to this one.” 288 261. Regarding the fourth element, which refers to effects on the legal situation of those involved owing to the duration of the proceedings, the Court considers, as it has previously, 289 that it is not necessary to analyze this in order to determine the reasonableness of the time taken by the investigations referred to above. 262. Consequently, the Inter-American Court concludes that the investigations by the Investigating Court, the Review Chamber, and the Public Prosecution Service have exceeded a reasonable time, which violates the right to judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. G) Right to know the truth 263. The Court recalls that, basically, the right to know the truth is subsumed in the right of the victims or their family to obtain from the State’s competent organs the clarification of the acts that violate the Convention and the corresponding responsibilities by the investigation and prosecution as established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, 290 which also constitutes a form of reparation. 291 Consequently, in this case, the Court will not make an additional ruling with regard to the alleged violation of the right to the truth presented by the representatives. 292 288 In its August 24, 2001, ruling the Seventh Investigating Court indicated that, even though the time frame established by law to terminate the pre-trial investigation is 60 days, “for complex cases such as this one […], a specific, definite time frame for the duration of the criminal proceedings cannot be established.” August 24, 2001, ruling of the Investigating Court, supra note 105, folio 4551. 289 Cf. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 138, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 284. 290 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 181, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 291. 291 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 153, para. 78, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 291. 292 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 291. In the case of Gomes Lund et al., the right to know the truth corresponded to Article 13, because the Court observed that, according to the relevant facts, the right to know the truth was related to an action filed by the family to have access to specific information corresponding to the access to justice and to the right to seek and receive information. 80