41. In their constant jurisprudence, the agencies of the inter-American system have applied three factors that are of importance in analyzing the case at hand, namely: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the actions of the judicial authorities, and (c) the procedural activity of the interested party. 25 In addition to these elements, they have determined that attention must be paid to the interests at play and to the impact of the trial’s duration on the situation of the person involved.26 In connection with that issue, the Court has ruled that: (…) in this analysis of reasonableness, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account; bearing in mind, among other elements, the matter in dispute. If the passage of time has a relevant impact on the judicial situation of the individual, the proceedings should be carried out more promptly so that the case is decided as soon as possible.27 42. As regards the burden of argument and evidence regarding the reasonableness of the delay, the Commission has ruled that it falls to the State to identify and prove the reasons why it took longer than reasonable to issue final judgment in a given case.28 Similarly, the Court has ruled that it is incumbent on the State to explain, on the basis of the aforesaid criteria, the reasons why a proceeding lasted more than a reasonable time and, should the State fail to do so, the Court has broad powers to make its own analysis of the matter.29 43. Regarding the complexity of the matter, the Inter-American Court recently30 reiterated that it takes several elements into account in evaluating that aspect. These include: (i) the complexity of the evidence,31 (ii) the number of participants in the proceedings32 or the number of victims,33 (iii) the time passed since the violation,34 (iv) the characteristics of the remedy afforded by domestic law, 35 and (v) the context in which the facts occurred.36 25 IACHR. Report on the Merits No. 77/02. Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11.506). December 27, 2002, para. 76. See also: I/A Court H. R. Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 105. 26 IACHR. Report No. 111/10. Case 12.539. Merits. Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family. Argentina. October 21, 2010, para. 100; IACHR, Report No. 1/16. Case 12.695. Merits. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches and Family. Chile. April 13, 2016, para. 149. 27 I/A Court H. R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155. See also: I/A Court H. R. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paras. 112 and 115; I/A Court H. R. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156; I/A Court H. R. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 133; I/A Court H. R. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 244. See also: IACHR. Report 83/10. Case 12.584. Merits. July 13, 2010, para. 77. 28 IACHR. Report No. 3/16. Case 12.916. Merits. Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, José Angel Alvarado Herrera, and others. Mexico. April 13, 2016. para. 271. 29 I/A Court H. R. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 157. Citing: 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 of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 239. 30 I/A Court H. R. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 158. 31 I/A Court H. R. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 179. 32 I/A Court H. R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 106; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 179. 33 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 156; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 179. 34 I/A Court H. R. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 300. 35 I/A Court H. R. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83; Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, para. 156; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 179. Likewise: Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83. 36 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, para. 156; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 179. Likewise: Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, para. 184; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 293. 7