a judgment. The Commission has also established that an essential element of effectiveness is timeliness; in that respect, the right to judicial protection requires courts to adjudicate and decide cases expeditiously, particularly with respect to urgent cases.118 87. In cases of violence against women, the generic obligations laid out in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention complete and reinforce each other, for those states that are parties, with obligations stemming from the specific inter-American treaty, that is, the Belém do Pará Convention. Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention requires states to also undertake actions to prevent, punish, and eradicate violence against women. The Inter-American Court has also asserted that, “when dealing with an act of violence against a woman, it is especially important for authorities in charge of the investigation to pursue it with determination and effectiveness, bearing in mind society’s duty to reject violence against women and the state’s obligations to eradicate it and to build up the victims’ trust in state institutions for their protection.”119 88. Finally, with respect to the guarantee of a reasonable delay envisioned in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has established that four elements must be taken into account to determine the reasonableness of the length of time of the proceedings: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, c) the conduct of the judicial authorities,120 and d) the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the interested party.121 2. Analysis of the case 2.1. Due diligence 89. The Commission observes that, in the instant case, a criminal proceeding was filed for culpable homicide on June 15, 1992, against the medical staff of the Hospital Público Sardá which took care of Ms. Britez Arce, and a civil suit for damages was filed against the hospital and the government of Buenos Aires on May 31, 1994. 90. As explained in detail, other criminal proceedings were filed on the basis of the principal investigation for culpable homicide (case 2391); case 21.375 for alleged falsification of a public document; and case 27.985 against the Medical Examiners Corps for alleged false testimony. 91. The Commission observes that the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Court, regarding the case for culpable homicide, indicated that the malpractice hypothesis that was presented was probable; nevertheless, because there were not enough elements to substantiate it, the Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that had acquitted the physicians charged. 92. The Commission underscores that, in various courts, as well as in the expert reports prepared, the impossibility of determining with any certainty the cause of Ms. Britez’s death, because the autopsy was not conducted immediately after the death, was stressed. 93. Furthermore, the many discrepancies regarding relevant determinations in the many expert reports prepared in the various proceedings must be highlighted. Although a criminal proceeding was filed for the alleged falsification of a public document against the physicians Florencio Casavilla and Carlos Fernando Leoncio Poggi, regarding the expertise conducted, and a criminal proceeding was filed against members of the Medical Examiners Corps for alleged false expertise, the state did not manage to ascertain the truth of what happened to Ms. Britez Arce. IACHR. Report No. 111/10. Case 12.539. Merits. Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family. Argentina. October 21, 2010, para. 94. I/A Court H.R. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 296. 120 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 196; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 289; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 151. 121 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; and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 49. 118 119 21