been completely clarified or the whereabouts of those who disappeared located. Even though the Court recognizes that the events of this case are complex, 788 it emphasizes that, for 16 years, no investigation was conducted into the disappearance of the victims and the investigation of this case made no significant progress until 2005; in other words, 20 years after the disappearances in this case commenced, even though the authorities were aware that the victims could have been forcibly disappeared. The Court underscores that the delay in the proceedings was caused, initially, by the failure to comply with the obligation to open the corresponding investigations ex officio in the ordinary jurisdiction; while, at a second stage, the authorities in charge of the investigations have lacked due diligence when implementing them (supra paras. 471 to 477 and 497 to 504). The Court also notes that the investigations into the detention and torture of three survivors are still at a preliminary stage, while an investigation has not even been started into the violations committed against a fourth survivor. Consequently, the Court considers that it is not necessary to make a detailed analysis of the previously mentioned criteria concerning the reasonable time. 507. The Court finds it evident that the investigations that were opened and also the criminal proceedings, taken as a whole, have significantly exceeded the time that could be considered reasonable for conducting serious, diligent and exhaustive investigations into the facts of this case. And this is especially so, when taking into account that, to the time that has already elapsed, must be added the time required: to complete the proceedings that are currently being processed, to identify other individuals who were possibly responsible, and to process the respective criminal proceedings with their different stages until a final judgment is obtained. The lack of an investigation for such a long period constitutes a flagrant denial of justice and a violation of the victims’ right of access to justice. B.7) Right to know the truth 508. The representatives argued that, for more than 20 years, the State has “violated the right of the victims and of their families to know the truth about the facts” “by concealing information that is relevant to the case and by not having provided the necessary mechanisms and proceedings to clarify the truth of what happened.” According to the representatives, “[t]hese acts and omissions of the State constitute a violation of the right to the truth, which is protected by Articles 1(1), 8, 13 and 25 of the Convention considered together.” The State did not present specific arguments in this regard. 509. In different cases, the Court has considered that the right to the truth “is subsumed in the right of the victims or the members of their family to obtain the elucidation of the acts that violated the Convention and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent State organs, by means of the investigation and prosecution established in Articles 8 and 25(1) of the Convention.” 789 In addition, in some cases, such as Anzualdo 788 This is because it involves numerous victims of different acts, and that there are different degrees of responsibility at diverse levels, as well as because it has involved the State’s constant denial that the facts occurred (due both to the refusal to provide information, which is typical of forced disappearance, and with regard to the other violations). 789 In most cases, the Court has included this consideration when analyzing the violation of Articles 8 and 25. Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 166; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 180; Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 151; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 206; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No.221, paras. 243 and 244; Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 240, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 220; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 147; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 178