e. f. g. h. i. j. ordered or performed and no technical conclusion was made about the bad conservation state of the gun. Even though the Prosecutors Office denounced the inconsistency between the existence of highly flammable explosive material that had not exploded, the multiple shots received and the moving of Mr. Gelves’ body during the alleged combat, there are no further technical studies about that. There was no attempt to locate the projectiles of grenade fragments that had allegedly been used by the patrol in the alleged clash. The weapons used by the members of the military forces were not recovered or preserved to confirm the number of munitions that were allegedly used during the operation. In the Commission’s file records, there is no information about a thorough and serious investigation about the identity of those dressed as civilians that forcedly took Mr. Elio Gelves from his house. The only evidence used to determine that they were members of the guerrilla, were the statements given by Mr. Manuel Gelves in which he said they were “farianos,” without any additional proceedings even though the next of kin consistently said that those who took his relative were members of the Army or the paramilitary. There is no information that indicates that the clothes Mr. Elio Gelves was wearing were preserved. There was no verification if they fit him, or, if they were big, as indicated by Mrs. Lucy Vega Blanco, which is indicative that they could have been planted. Neither was a reconstruction of the events with the participants of the operation done, or technical tests that all together would allow to clarify the number of shots made by each of the members of the military forces who participated in the operation, their exact location and their paths gearing at explaining those shots that were received with a back to front path. 243. The Commission notes that the set of actions and military judicial decisions, show the absence of proceedings such as those listed, which made it possible that there were no additional elements for contrasting the versions of the military. Although witnesses and technical tests suggest contradictions over the way in which the events were confirmed, they allowed for the members of the military forces to benefit from the omissions to be able to justify a legitimate use of force as a result of an incomplete, ineffective and absence of Independence and impartiality. 244. In light of the abovementioned, the Commission concludes that the investigation was not diligent or was geared to clarify the events in violation of Articles 8 and 25 to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Gelves. iii) Reasonable time 245. The criminal proceedings against the defendants lasted 4 years and 10 months. Notwithstanding, as stated, it was performed and closed by authorities in a special jurisdiction that lack the guarantees of independence and impartiality. So far, to date, more than 17 years since the death of Mr. Elio Gelves, the events haven’t been under the jurisdiction of independent and impartial authorities. The Commission considers this period to be unreasonable as there are no elements in the file that justify such delay. Particularly, the investigation is not complex, it is just one victim and those possibly responsible were identified in the investigation since the first day. Also, the relevant authorities had complete access to the crime scene and the opportunity to perform any relevant technical tests. 246. The authorities in charge of the case did not act with appropriate mechanisms to provide adequate judicial protection, ensuring that the facts were heard by the ordinary courts and encouraging the process to be maintained in the military jurisdiction in full. The Commission notes that the failure by the authorities to practice proceedings and technical tests geared at getting to the truth of the events has become a serious obstacle to access justice as time elapsed. This, even when the 40th Attorney General’s office of proposed the “positive jurisdiction clash” which gave the authorities the opportunity to decide the proceedings to be held at the ordinary jurisdiction. The Commission recalls that the next of kin have cooperated with their witness statements.