justice, States have "an obligation to ensure the right of the victims or their families to participate in all phases of the respective proceedings, so that they can make suggestions, receive information, provide evidence, make arguments and, in brief, assert their interests and rights.”29 The Court has held as follows: [T]he investigation must be aimed at pursuing, arresting, prosecuting, and punishing both the perpetrators and the masterminds of the facts. Impunity must be eradicated by establishing both general State responsibilities and the individual responsibilities (criminal and other) of its agents or of private parties, such that to comply with this obligation, the State must remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that maintain impunity.30 36. Additionally, States have an obligation to ensure investigations are conducted exhaustively and diligently. This means conducting all the inquiries necessary to ensure the victims can learn the truth of all the facts that took place and to ensure those involved in the crimes are punished.31 The State must demonstrate that it has conducted an immediate, exhaustive, serious, and impartial investigation32 aimed at exploring all potential lines of investigation to enable the identification of the perpetrators of the crime so they can be tried and punished.33 Both the IACHR and the Courts have held that States can be held responsible for failure to “order, practice, or evaluate” evidence that could be fundamental for solving the facts.34 37. With regard to the principle of independence and impartiality, States must guarantee that the bodies charged with taking part in the judicial process—whether during the preliminary investigation or in the trial itself—approach the matter with as much objectivity as possible. This essentially means that the intervening judicial authorities must have no personal prejudice and provide sufficient guarantees such that the parties of the process have no justified doubt as to its impartiality.35 38. Regarding the reasonable period of time for the process, it must be assessed based on the total length of the proceeding from the first procedural act until issuance of the final judgment, including any appeals that may be filed.36 The right to access to information means that the solution to the matter must be produced within a reasonable period of time, as a prolonged delay can, in certain cases, constitute in itself a violation of the right to a fair trial.37 Both the IACHR and the Court have underscored that in order to determine the reasonability of the length of a process, the following elements must be taken into account: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the conduct of judicial authorities; and iv) the effect the legal situation has had on the person involved in the process.38 39. Lastly, both the IACHR and the Court have indicated that in cases where a person with disabilities has been affected, judicial authorities should act with greater diligence. The Court has held that "it is crucial that the authorities in charge prioritize attending to and resolving the procedure to avoid delays in the proceedings, thus guaranteeing the swift resolution or execution of them."39 Likewise, the State obligations with regard to the duties of due diligence and swiftness described in the previous section are enhanced in cases of persons IACHR. Thematic report The Right to Truth in the Americas. August 13, 2014, para. 80. Inter-American Court. Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 251. 30 Inter-American Court. Case of the Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antonio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 220. 31 Inter-American Court. Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 81. 32 IACHR. Report 55/97. Merits. Juan Carlos Abella et al. Argentina. November 18, 1997, para. 412. 33 IACHR. Report 25/09. Merits. Sebastião Camargo Filho. Brazil. March 19, 2009, para. 109. 34 Inter-American Court, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 230. Also see: IACHR. Access to Justice for women who are Victims of Violence in the Americas. January 20, 2007, para. 41. 35 Inter-American Court. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. Paras. 169 to 171. 36 Inter-American Court. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330. Para. 200. 37 Inter-American Court. Case of the Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antonio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 222. 38 IACHR. Report 110/10. Case 12,539. Merits, Sebastián Furlan and relatives v. Argentina. October 21, 2010, para. 100. 39 Inter-American Court. Case of Spoltore v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 45. 29 7