50 occurred, and the patterns that explain why the events occurred, ensuring that there were no omissions in gathering evidence or in the development of logical lines of investigation199. In this sense, it is essential the adoption of all the measures necessary to view the systematic patterns that allowed the commission of serious human rights violations as well as the mechanisms and structures through which impunity was ensured. c) Regarding the reasonable time in the length of the proceedings 155. As to the reasonable time of length of the proceedings, the Commission as well as the representatives alleged that the State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention. La primera resaltó el tiempo que han tardado los procesos sin resultados tangibles respecto de los responsables, la falta de evacuación de pruebas y la posición activa de los familiares desde la primera denuncia. Los representantes sostuvieron que este no es un caso complejo, por tratarse de la desaparición de una única persona bajo una práctica sistemática y un modus operandi establecido, aunque reconocieron que la participación de agentes estatales y el ambiente de impunidad y miedo que imperaba en la época de los hechos podían entrañar cierta complejidad, lo que no justifica una falta o retardo. 156. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes as one of the elements of due process that the courts decide on the cases submitted to them within a reasonable time. In that respect, the Court found that is necessary to take into account four aspects to determine the fairness of such term: a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the procedural activities carried out by the interested party, (c) the conduct of judicial authorities200, and the impairment to the legal situation of the individual involved in the proceeding201. However, the appropriateness of applying these criteria to determine the reasonability of the term of a proceeding depends of the circumstances of each case202, since in cases such like this, the State’s duty to wholly serve the purposes of justice prevails over the guarantee of reasonable time203. In any event, it falls upon the State to demonstrate the reasons why a proceeding or several proceedings have lasted more than a reasonable time to be conducted. Otherwise, the Court has broad powers to make its own analysis of this matter. 157. In the instant case, the Court notes that the inquiry into the facts was of a certain complexity, considering not only that it dealt with a forced disappearance in which the perpetrators tried to eliminate any trace or evidence, but also the refusal to provide information about the whereabouts and the number of possible responsible. Nevertheless, in the first period, the judicial authorities acted negligently and without 199 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters V. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs; supra note 90, para. 88 and 105, and Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 13, para. 158. 200 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 58, para. 149; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C Nº 187, para. 107. 201 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 145 para. 155 and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 112. 202 Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” V. Colombia, supra nota 39, para. 214; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 75, para. 171. In a similar case, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 167. 203 Cf. Case of La Cantuta V. Peru, supra note 58, para. 149.