47. Fifth, it was only in 2001, eight years after the facts took place, that the judge in charge of the process conducted a new inspection of the scene of the facts, without requesting any additional investigative steps. The judge also asked for the first time for the accused individual to give a statement, but this procedure was never executed. According to the petitioner, the failure to exercise this request for a statement was the result of outside pressure from the President Magistrate at the time of the Chamber of the Third Western District, an individual who was close to the accused. The IACHR does not have enough information to confirm the petitioner’s claim. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the judge in charge of the process sought to recuse himself from it, a recusal that was granted by the Chamber of the Third Western District. 48. Sixth, the Commission observes that between 2001 and 2003, the case was not assigned to any judicial authority, and was therefore stalled. Likewise, the new judge that was assigned to the case also requested to recuse himself—a request that was not granted—and took no steps to move the case forward. 49. Seventh, in May 2004, the First Trial Judge of Atiquizaya provisionally dismissed the charges. The judge found that during the process, no evidence was collected and no testimony was given. The resolution was upheld by the Chamber of the Third Western District in July 2004. 50. The Commission finds that from the start of the investigation, there was at least one police report indicating that the grenade exploded from inside the vehicle, and that the owner of the vehicle had weapons in the back. Despite this, no investigative steps were taken during the process to explore this line of investigation. The IACHR notes that during the 11 years the process lasted, four inspections of the scene of the facts were carried out, with no additional investigative steps taken. Additionally, statements were never taken from the accuser, who was a person with physical disabilities, the defendant, the other person traveling in the vehicle, or any of the four witnesses to the facts. Additionally, the IACHR notes the long periods of procedural inactivity, multiple transfers of the investigation to different judicial authorities, and requests from judges to recuse themselves from handling the process. 51. The IACHR concludes that these elements reflect a lack of due diligence in investigating, resolving the facts, and punishing the individuals responsible for the facts that took place in 1993 to the detriment of Miguel Ángel Aguirre Magaña. The IACHR underscores that it is precisely this lack of due diligence that led to the dismissal of the charges against the accused and, consequently, a situation of impunity. Despite multiple briefs submitted to raise questions about these omissions, irregularities, and shortcomings in the investigation, the State did not provide adequate and effective remedies to address these violations. 52. Regarding the length of the criminal process, the IACHR observes that it lasted 11 years, from the submission of the criminal complaint in 1993 to the upholding of the dismissal in 2004. Recalling the elements for determining the reasonability of the time period of the process described in the previous section, the Commission highlights that there is no complexity where a possible perpetrator has been identified, there were witnesses, and there was information. In any case, for a complexity argument to be admissible, it is not sufficient for States to simply invoke it. They must provide specific information in each case that connects its complexity to the delay.43 In this case, that did not happen. 53. The Commission also does not find enough evidence to allow for the conclusion that there was some type of activity or behavior on the part of the alleged victim that could have slowed the investigation. The IACHR notes that the submission of the remedies available under domestic law by the individual involved in the process is not a justification for delaying its processing. With regard to the actions of judicial authorities, the IACHR underscores the various transfers of the case, as well as the long periods of procedural inactivity. 54. Regarding the impact of the juridical situation on the person involved in the process, the IACHR recalls the contents of the previous section regarding the enhanced duty to accelerate the investigation in the case of persons with disabilities. In this regard, the Commission underscores that Mr. Aguirre's disability made it necessary for the investigations and criminal process to be carried out with greater diligence in order to be 43 IACHR. Report 34/14. Case 12,492. Merits. Carlos Escaleras Mejía and relatives, para. 172. 9