74 139. Article 8 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] f) the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; […] a) Regarding the principle of reasonable time as regards the duration of the criminal proceedings filed against Mr. Canese 140. Examination of the criminal proceedings file, a copy of which was provided by the State, shows that the action against Mr. Canese was filed on October 23, 1992. The judgment of first instance was delivered on March 22, 1994, by the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters and the judgment of second instance was delivered on November 4, 1997, by the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeal (supra para. 69(15) and 69(20)). Both the complainants’ lawyer and Mr. Canese’s lawyer filed remedies of appeal against this judgment of second instance on November 7 and 12, 1997, respectively (supra para. 69(21) and 69(23)). On February 26, 1998, the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeal decided not to admit the remedy of appeal filed by Mr. Canese (supra para. 69(27)). Regarding the appeal filed by the complainants’ lawyer, on November 19, 1997, the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeal admitted it and ordered the case files to be forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay (supra para. 69(24)). However, this appeal was only decided by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on May 2, 2001 (supra para. 69(41)); in other words, it took almost three years and five months to rule on the appeal. 141. With regard to the principle of reasonable time indicated in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, this Court has established that three elements must be taken into account to determine the reasonableness of the duration of a proceeding: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and c) the conduct of the judicial authorities.142 142. The Court considers that, in certain cases, a prolonged delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. It is for the State to explain and prove why it has required more time than would be reasonable, in principle, to deliver final judgment in a specific case, in accordance with these criteria.143 142 Cf. the Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 190; Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 143; and Case of Suárez-Rosero, supra note 140, para. 72. Similarly, Cf. Eur Court H.R., Motta v. Italy, Judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A No. 195-A, para. 30; and Eur Court H.R, Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, Judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A No. 262, para. 30. 143 Cf. Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 191; Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 142, para. 145; and Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, paras. 63 and 64.