reasonable time, [and] did not release him; this was detrimental to his ability to defend himself and to his personal integrity, and violated his right to liberty, subjecting him to cruel and dehumanizing treatment. This situation is clearly reflected in the efforts made to keep him in pretrial detention, exceeding the legally permitted time limits, subjecting him for several years without a break to lengthy and continuous judicial proceedings. Likewise, the delay, for many years, of the judicial proceedings to which he was subjected not only affected his safety but also harmed his physical integrity, dignity, property, freedom and human rights. This was compounded by the fact that the State forcefully interpreted its regulations and exceeded its sovereign power over the alleged victim, in order to keep him in preventive detention during this exceedingly long and unreasonable judicial process. B.2. Considerations of the Court 419. This Court notes that the Factum Consorcio representatives made two different arguments: the first regarding the reasonableness of the overall duration of the criminal proceedings, and the second, regarding the legality and reasonableness of the pretrial detention. This second aspect has already been addressed in Chapter VIII.II of this judgment, concerning personal liberty, for which reason the Court will not comment on it again. 420. This Court has pointed out that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the overall duration of the proceedings until the final judgment is issued. 591 421. The Court recalls that the facts investigated in a criminal trial must be resolved within a reasonable period of time, since in certain cases a prolonged delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 592 422. In addition, this Court has considered four elements to determine the reasonableness of a period of time: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activity of the interested party; c) the conduct of the authorities, and d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the process. 593 The Court recalls that it is for the State to justify, based on the above criteria, the reason why it has required the time elapsed to process the cases and, if it does not do so, the Court has broad powers to make its own assessment in this regard. 594 423. Accordingly, the Court will determine whether the State respected Mr. Martínez’s right to be judged within a reasonable time and will proceed to analyze each of these four elements. 424. Regarding the first element, this Court has taken into account several criteria to determine the complexity of the case, including: i) the complexity of the evidence; 595 ii) the Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, supra, para. 71, and Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 183. 592 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 217. 593 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 135. 594 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, Para. 156, and Case Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 121. 595 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, Para. 78, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 137. 591 131