without complying with the order of the Supreme Court of Justice. What should have occurred, as was recorded in the dissenting vote that accompanies the decision of October 29, 1998 of the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, was to proceed to reconstruct the ratification casefile.73 98. Finally, this Court has indicated that the right of access to justice implies that settlement of the dispute occurs within a reasonable time, since a prolonged delay may in itself constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. The Court has also established that the evaluation of the reasonable period of time must be analyzed in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the process, including the appeals that may be presented.74 In this way, four elements have been considered in analyzing whether the guarantee of the reasonable period of time was complied with, namely: (i) the complexity of the matter, (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party, (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities , and (iv) the impact generated in the legal situation of the presumed victim. 75 In this case, it is alleged that the guarantee of the reasonable period of time would have been denied because more than 10 years passed between the Supreme Court decision of August 4, 1986, which found the decision of September 2, 1985 null and void and the amparo judgment of June 14, 1985 as groundless, and the new amparo ruling. Therefore, the Court will analyze the elements of the reasonable period of time to determine if said guarantee was breached in the amparo action process. 99. Firstly, in order to analyze the reasonable time period for proceedings, the overall duration of the process must be considered. In this case, the duration of the amparo appeal filed by Mrs. Moya Solís is analyzed. This appeal was filed on February 17, 1984 and processed for the first time between 1984 and 1986, when the Supreme Court of Justice found the second instance decision invalid and ordered a new ruling be issued. After the Supreme Court’s decision, the process of the amparo appeal was extended for the second time, until September 1999, the date on which the Supreme Court's decision on the alleged nullity of the second amparo decision was notified. In other words, the total processing of the amparo appeal took more than 15 years, while the processing of the second amparo action took more than 13 years. In the Court's opinion, a delay of this magnitude in the resolution of an appeal aimed at guaranteeing fundamental rights is, by all accounts, disproportionate 100. However, the Court will proceed to analyze the elements that have been defined in its case law, in response to the State's arguments on this matter. Firstly, in relation to the complexity of the matter, the State acknowledged that "the matter was not inherently complex". However, it alleged that the application for amparo was filed to question aspects related to the appeal for review, but that, as a result of the ruling that the ratification file was required to be viewed, Mrs. Moya Solís “modified her arguments to take that position”. In the Court's opinion, the requirement to have the ratification file in view did not modify the purpose of the debate and, in any case, did not add any special complexity to the matter. Furthermore, this occurred in 1986, that is, 13 years before the final decision. Therefore, the matter studied did not present a degree of complexity that warranted the time taken to resolve it. Cf. Dissenting opinion of Judge Castillo La Rosa Sánchez to the ruling of October 29, 1998 (evidence file, folios 90 to 91). 73 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Bottom. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417. para. 122. 74 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78, and Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil., supra, para. 223. 75 27