111. In that respect, a reasonable time must be understood in regard to the total duration of the criminal proceedings.152 According to the terms of Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Commission shall take into consideration, in the light of the concrete circumstances of the case, those elements that bodies of the Inter-American System have taken into account, namely: i) the complexity of the case; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; and iii) the conduct of judicial authorities; and iv) the impact arising from the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. 153 112. Regarding the complexity, the Stated alleged that the delay in the proceedings was because of this factor as the investigations involved a large number of persons. Nevertheless, the Commission observes that the State of Honduras did not allege how these features of the investigation had directly led to the delay in the proceedings. 113. The Commission considers that, as pointed out by the Court, the delay in carrying out the investigation cannot be justified by the complexity of the case when: i) possible perpetrators of the crime have been individually identified; ii) there are witnesses; and iii) there are possible lines of inquiry. 154 In any case, for an argument of complexity to be admissible, it is not enough for the States to invoke the complexity of a case in general terms. It is necessary to present specific information that would establish, in each case, the ties between the complexity and the delay. In the present case, the Commission has already highlighted the absence of follow-up on the clues regarding the instigators and perpetrators of the crime, as well as the many flaws and omissions that underscore that the delay was not because of the case's complexity. 114. As for the participation of the interested parties, the Commission observes that, although it is the State's duty to promote ex officio the investigations, the next of kin and witnesses have contributed actively by providing statements in the process. The IACHR observes that the case file includes the various statements made by Mr. Pacheco's next of kin, referring to those persons who had threatened him before he was killed. The Commission also notes that the legal representatives followed up on and promoted the investigation, repeatedly complaining about the delay in the processing of the steps taken, as well as the long periods of time where the proceedings were at a standstill. 115. As for the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission refers to the delays, flaws, irregularities, and obstructions already described above. In addition, the IACHR notes that, in July 2004, the Prosecutor of the Attorney General's Office of the Department of Valle indicated that the last action taken by prosecution was an identity card notification request in February 2002. That is why, in July 2004, Marleny, Regina, and José Pacheco requested the intervention of the Human Rights Prosecution Office, because of the failure to adopt steps to identify the persons responsible. This request did not have any impact on remedying the delay that had already taken place. On the contrary, the Commission deems of the utmost gravity the fact that, between 2005 and 2010, no major actions were taken. Furthermore, IACHR notes that, after 2005, the DNIC dismantled the team investigating Mr. Pacheco's case. The Commission has no information about the investigations between 2010 and the present, although it was requested by the Commission at the public hearing held for the present case. 116. In short, the Commission considers that more than 13 years of delays incurred by the domestic judiciary go beyond the time that can be deemed reasonable. As a result, the delay in domestic 152 I/A Court H.R., Case of López-Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; Case of AcostaCalderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168. See also: IACHR, Report No. 77/02, Case 11.506, Merits, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos, Paraguay, December 27, 2002, para. 76. 153 IACHR, Report No. 111/10, Case 12.539, Merits, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family, Argentina, October 21, 2010, para. 100. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 164. 154 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 275.