international warrant was issued for his arrest. 606 Thus, Mr. Martínez remained abroad for 4 years and 7 days, 607 out of the more than nine years that the criminal trial lasted in total. 608 427. As for the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that, in their arguments, Mr. Martínez’ representatives did not specify which aspects of the proceedings were conducted slowly. Nor did they present the complete criminal file of Mr. Martínez. Therefore, this Court considers that they did not provide sufficient arguments or evidence for it to rule on this point. 428. Finally, it has been established that, in order to determine the question of reasonable time, it is necessary to consider the impact generated by the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person involved. In this case, Mr. Martínez faced the possibility of a long sentence, since he was accused of twelve crimes of embezzlement in the form of a continuing offense, which increased the possible prison sentence to up to 24 years. 609 In addition, during the criminal proceedings, the alleged victim was held in pretrial detention that lasted 4 years and 9 months. Therefore, the duration of these proceedings would have an impact on Mr. Martínez. 429. In view of the foregoing, this Court considers that, although there was a possibility of a significant impact on the defendant, the criminal case was highly complex. Moreover, Mr. Martínez was in Canada for 4 years and 7 days and this played an important role in the delay of his trial. Likewise, the representatives did not provide evidence to demonstrate undue slowness on the part of the State in processing the criminal case. Therefore, the Court concludes that in this case the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, was not proven. C. Alleged violation of the right to defense C.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 430. The Commission indicated, with respect to Groups 2 (Rafael Rojas Madrigal) and 3 (Enrique and Luis Archbold Jay), that it did not have sufficient evidence to determine that the violation of their right to defense alleged by their representatives actually took place. The Commission did not mention this point with respect to Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez). 431. The SIPDH representatives alleged that their clients in Group 3 (Enrique and Luis Archbold Jay) were victims of a criminal proceeding that did not ensure, in terms of fairness and equal opportunity, the exercise of their right to defense. Both the courts of first instance, and the various rulings by the Third Chamber or the Courts of Cassation in the motions for cassation and review that they heard, violated the basic principles that govern the assessment 606 Cf. Decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 7, 2000 (evidence file, folio 2055). 607 Cf. Press report: “Canada hands over fugitive Martínez”, published in La Nación newspaper, December 3, 2003, which refers to decision No. 2003-IMM-4206-01 of the Federal Court of Canada of March 26, 2003 (evidence file, folio 2042). 608 The criminal proceeding began on August 22, 1998 with the order for pretrial detention. Cf. Decision of the Special Duty Criminal Court of August 22, 1998, (evidence file, folio 26256). It concluded with a final decision on the petition for a writ of reversal on cassation, on March 11, 2008. Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 33874). 609 Cf. Decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of December 3, 2003 (evidence file, folio 2007). 133