233. As mentioned previously, the First Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Falcón opened an investigation into the facts on January 28, 2003 and on March 28, 2008, more than five years later, filed charges before the Second Court of the Judicial District of the State of Falcón against three police officers for the crime of unlawful deprivation of liberty. 234. Although a final judgment was issued on May 6, 2009 dismissing the charges in this case, and it is clear that at the beginning of the investigation the prosecutor ordered several procedures to be carried out, the Court notes that during the proceeding, there were inexplicable procedural delays and periods during which there was no procedural activity, such as, for example, between March 2003 and September 2005. It also notes that the circumstances of the case were not at all complex, since charges brought by the prosecutor on March 28, 2008 were based on material and objective elements that were easily obtained, most of which were in the Prosecution’s possession within days of the events. 235. In the opinion of the Court, the fact that Luis Enrique Uzcátegui did not answer the summons to the preliminary hearings in 2008, as alleged by the State, does not explain the reasons for the delay by the authorities in formulating charges having had access - for five years – to the same evidence upon which the charges were based. 236. Therefore, the Court finds that the investigations and the procedures aimed at bringing charges for the events of January 25, 2003 in connection with the detention of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui exceeded a reasonable time and, therefore, the State violated the rights under the Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui. B.3. Investigations into the detention, threats and harassment against Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui. 237. As for the other investigations regarding the detention, threats, and harassment against Luis Eduardo Uzcátegui and their families, the Court notes, first, that many of these facts were reported to the competent authorities; secondly, that some complaints were filed several weeks after the alleged incidents; and thirdly that, despite this, there is no evidence in the record that investigations were carried out by the relevant authorities277 or that the State presented arguments or evidence to explain that the actions of the person concerned had been a significant hurdle for carrying out the investigations and inquiries into the allegations. 238. In addition, the Court notes that the body of evidence established that Luis Enrique Uzcátegui had identified several of the people who harassed and threatened him,278 but it is not evident from the procedures followed by the authorities that they took statements or investigated in some other manner. The State did not present specific arguments mentioning the actions taken in this regard. 239. Consequently, the Court concludes that the investigations into the threats and acts of harassment were not investigated with due diligence and within a reasonable time, and that therefore the State violated the right of access to justice, recognized in 277 One of the few procedures mentioned concerns the events of November 14, 2002, when Luis Enrique Uzcátegui was allegedly the victim of shots fired from a motorcycle. A Police Report of December 2002 records the fact that a Police delegation went to the place and interviewed “several passers-by who when asked about the incident said they know nothing about it” (Evidence file, volume 8, page 4105). 278 Cf. Second Court of Control, Criminal Circuit Court of Coro, File IP01-P-2008-000591, Exhibit 2, Accused: Harrison Joelis Tremont Sánchez, César Adan Martinez and Pedro José Romero Yánez (Evidence file, volume 8, page 3902 and subsq.). 59