both intellectually and directly, and concerning the individuals or groups that were interested in or would benefit from the crime (beneficiaries). This, in turn, would lead to theories and lines of inquiry and to an examination of the crime scene, witnesses and other probative elements. Hence, in cases such as this, it is not a question of examining the crime in isolation, but rather of inserting it in a context that will provide the necessary elements to understand its operational structure.271 223. Based on all the above points, and despite the fact that Prosecutor Espartaco Martínez, the expert witness offered by the State, reported that at the time of issuing this Judgment two people are being tried for these events, the Court concludes that the authorities did not act with due diligence in investigating the death of Néstor Uzcátegui. Consequently, the State violated the rights to a fair trial [judicial guarantees] and judicial protection under Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the relatives of Néstor José Uzcátegui. b.- Reasonable period 224. In this case, the Court, having confirmed that 12 and a half years after the events took place, the perpetrators of Nestor José Uzcátegui’s execution have not been identified or punished, and recalling its case law regarding the fact that a lack of reasonable time for carrying out an investigation constitutes, in principle, a violation of judicial guarantees,272 will consider four elements to determine the fairness of such term: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, c) the conduct of the judicial authorities,273 and iv) the impairment caused to the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings.274 225. With respect to the first element, the Court notes that the delay in conducting the investigation into the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui cannot be justified on the basis of the complexity of the case. Clearly, this is not a case where there are numerous victims; the circumstances of his death were not particularly complex and, on the contrary, there was clear identification of the possible perpetrators and there were also witnesses. Nor did the prosecutors follow lines of inquiry that took into account the aforementioned police abuses and executions in the state of Falcon, 275 something that was not alleged by the State to justify the delay in the investigation. 226. Regarding the second element, even if in this case an investigation is an ex officio duty of the State, the Court has found that the relatives of the victim, especially Luis Uzcátegui, took on an active role by filing complaints and reporting the information available to them to the authorities. Moreover, on several occasions, they filed complaints against various authorities for the lack of procedural action, and called for the investigations to be moved forward. 271 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 119. 272 Cf. Case of 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, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 154. 273 Cf. of Case Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77 and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 112. 274 Cf. Case Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 155 and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 273. 275 2011. Cf. Testimony of Espartaco Martínez before the Court during the public hearing on November 28, 57