210. The Commission finds that in its last brief, the State reported that "currently the proceedings are progressing with orders for the taking of evidence, the most recent being on June 20, 2014.” However, the state and observes that no explanation was offered about those procedures, nor was there any indication if anyone is currently under investigation. 211. Finally, with respect to the complaint filed on October 22, 1994, which alleges that Guillermo Omera was tortured, the Commission observes there is nothing in the record to suggest that that was actually investigated. Although the Commission notes that the exhumation of the corpse was ordered on August 9, which would have helped to settle the dispute over the nature and extent of the alleged injuries, the State offered no evidence to confirm that said procedure was actually carried out or of its impact on the investigation. d. The Investigation of What Happened to Héctor Álvarez 212. The Commission notes that the investigation of the attack on Héctor Álvarez was conducted by the 22nd Specialized Prosecutor’s Office. Although the State broadly mentioned a series of procedures, including interviews and collection of evidence, it offered no proof or explanation of same, which has prevented confirmation of their content, pertinence, and findings in the investigation. 213. The foregoing aside, the Commission finds that the State reported that there was evidence to suggest that one of the perpetrators of the attack was alias the “Loco Ave,” who was murdered on January 14, 1996. As regards the other possible perpetrators, the Commission observes that the State said that in a voluntary deposition, Mr. “Pava Montilla” admitted having been a member of the self-defense group but denied having taken part in the events or having information about the possible perpetrators. The Commission finds that there is nothing in the information provided by the State to suggest that, other than his statement, the attempt was made to gather more evidence about Mr. “Pava Montilla” or to investigate the possible involvement of agents of the state in the events. The foregoing is particularly important, bearing in mind the account presented by the family to the effect that the attack was connected with Mr. Álvarez’s inquiries into the violence committed against Guillermo Omeara, who, in turn, was making inquiries into the attack on Noel Emiro Omeara, in which there is information implicating agents of the State. e. The Length of the Investigations 214. The Commission recalls that in determining if an investigation has been carried out in a reasonable time, the organs of the inter-American system have considered: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.247 215. The Commission observes that the three investigations carried out in the regular jurisdiction in this case have dragged on for nearly 21 years in all. In the Commission's opinion the case was not particularly complex since the victims were individuals whose identity was easily determined. Moreover, the violations committed against them were connected, as they belonged to the same family and there were allegations that following what happened to Mr. Omeara Carrascal, the other acts of violence were reprisals for inquiries made by family members. The Commission also notes that the events were immediately brought to the attention of the State, and the authorities had free access to the scene of the crime and were able to question possible witnesses and carry out the relevant technical tests. Be that as it may, the State has not provided concrete information by which to establish a link between the potential complexity of the matter and specific in the investigations. 247IACHR, Report No. 111/10, Case 12.539, Merits, Sebastián Claus Furlan and family, Argentina, October 21, 2010, par. 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, par. 164. 48