45 No. 343,431, on December 19, 2001, the opening of the preliminary investigation was ordered so as to identify other individuals who were possibly responsible. On January 21, 2005, the investigation was reassigned to the National Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor's Office because the victim in the case was a human rights defender. On February 16, 2006, this Unit ordered that two alleged members of a paramilitary group should be charged as presumably responsible for the offenses of murder and simple kidnapping, to the detriment of Jesús María Valle, Nelly Valle Jaramillo and, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa. Both of the accused are currently deprived of liberty as a result of other proceedings. The investigation was closed under article 393 of Law 600 of 2000, which means that “an order was issued that the case file be assessed.” 152. In addition, proceedings are underway in the National Justice and Peace Unit of the Prosecutor General's Office against Salvatore Mancuso and Isaías Montes Hernández, alias “Junior,” under Law 975 of 2005 (infra paras. 161 to 164), in which, according to the State, “evidence is emerging that will help clarify the facts” of the instant case. 153. The Court observes that despite the State's acknowledgement of facts and acquiescence to various claims, it is still necessary to define the significance and gravity of the violations committed in relation to Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. Consequently, the Court will examine whether the official investigative activities were carried out with due diligence, together with other elements, in order to determine whether the proceedings and procedures were conducted observing judicial guarantees and within a reasonable time, and whether they have been effective in ensuring the victims’ rights to access to justice, the truth about the facts, and reparations.109 A.1) Considerations on whether the duration of the criminal proceedings was reasonable 154. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice means that the settlement of the dispute must take place within a reasonable time,110 since a prolonged delay can constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.111 In this case, the Court observes that more than 10 years have elapsed since the facts occurred and the respective criminal proceedings are still open. The reasonableness of this delay must be examined in relation to the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention, taking into account the total duration of the proceedings until a final judgment is handed down.112 155. The Court has established that three elements must be taken into account in order to determine whether the time is reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities.113 In addition, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that, in this analysis of reasonableness, the 109 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 70, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 126, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 58, para. 109. 110 Cf. Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 73; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 148, and Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 59. 111 Cf. 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; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 148, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 110, para. 59. 112 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 110, para. 71; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 105, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 148. 113 Cf. Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 107, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 149.