227. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court has already confirmed the delays in several investigative procedures as well as numerous omissions in the forensic autopsy and the gathering and storing of evidence (supra paras. 216 to 222), which resulted in considerable delays in the investigations and related charges. Similarly, the Court notes that, according to the information submitted by the State, in the course of the investigation process there are periods for which there is no evidence that any significant procedural or investigative action was carried out. 228. In this regard, the Court specifically notes that no information was presented regarding significant activity between March 6, 2002 and January 30, 2003, when the Seventh Prosecutor of the State of Falcón urgently requested information as to whether the measures ordered eleven months earlier had been carried out, in addition to the planimetric survey of December 2, 2003. Moreover, the Court is aware that, based on the evidence file, there was no activity by the authorities for over a year and a half, between September 12, 2003, when the Prosecutor again ordered that some procedures be carried out, and June 9, 2005, the date on which the Prosecutor once again requested the implementation of complementary measures. The Court also notes that there is no information on record about what occurred in the investigation between December 2005, when Luis Uzcátegui and three police officers testified, and April 2, 2008, two years and ten months later, the date on which the domestic court informed Luis Uzcátegui that the indictment had been filed and that it was not until September 2008 that the prosecution charged two police officers of the act, for the crime of simulating a punishable act, misuse of firearms, and aggravated homicide, to the detriment of Néstor José Uzcátegui 229. In this regard, the Court notes that it is not clear from the case file or from the arguments made by the State, that these periods of inactivity were justified on grounds related to the very nature of the investigation process. Finally, the Court finds that, as was indicated by the parties, in the 11 and a half years since the investigation began in connection with the killing of Néstor Uzcátegui, three Prosecutors´ Offices and 23 different Prosecutors have been involved. It is reasonable to assume that such frequent changes of persons responsible for conducting the criminal prosecution of a crime (on average more than two per year) create obvious delays in procedures and difficulties in quickly and consistently following the lines of inquiry. 230. With respect to the fourth element, namely the adverse effect caused by the length of proceedings on the legal situation of those involved, the Court finds, as it has on previous occasions,276 that in this case it is not necessary to analyze this point to determine the reasonableness of the period for the investigations mentioned herein. 231. Consequently, the Court concludes that the investigations into the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui exceeded a reasonable period, and thus, the State violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Néstor José Uzcátegui’s relatives. B.2. Investigations and legal proceedings related to the events of January 25, 2003. 232. The Court also notes that one of the allegations made by Luis Enrique Uzcátegui regarding the context of harassment, threats and intimidation is that concerning his detention on January 25, 2003, at the General Police Headquarters of the city of Coro for alleged acts of domestic violence (supra paras. 93 and 97 to 122). 276 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 284 and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 138. 58