conduct of the judicial authorities; 196 and d) the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim. 197 The Court reiterates that it is up to the State to justify, based on these criteria, the reason why it has required the time elapsed to process the case and, if it does not do so, the Court has broad powers to draw its own conclusions in this regard. 198 The Court also reiterates that this analysis must consider the total duration of the process, from the first procedural act until the final judgment is delivered, including any appeals that may be filed. 199 127. In this case, the Court notes that Mr. Olivera’s complaint was filed on October 1, 2004. The first administrative proceeding was exhausted on August 31, 2005, and the second on May 17, 2006. In addition, the first judicial proceeding was exhausted on June 10, 2008, the second on June 14, 2010, and finally, the third and last proceeding ended on April 11, 2011, that is, six and a half years after the filing of the initial complaint. 128. That said, although the Court notes that this case did not present major complexities and that no obstructive activity was apparent on the part of Mr. Olivera, it does not have sufficient evidence to determine negligent conduct on the part of the State, especially since five proceedings took place (both in administrative and judicial courts) over a period of six and a half years, from the filing of the complaint by Mr. Olivera until the last and final decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State did not violate Article 8(1) of the American Convention for the alleged failure to observe the guarantee of reasonable time. B.4.4 Conclusions 129. The Court considers that the standards and requirements regarding the burden of proof imposed by the domestic administrative and judicial organs nullified Mr. Olivera’s right to equal access to justice. Moreover, the particular reasoning provided by the administrative authorities - which was not remedied in the judicial proceedings - was based on stereotypes related to sexual orientation that affected the impartiality of these bodies. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(1), 8(1), 11(2), 24 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. However, the State is not responsible for the alleged violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention related to the alleged The Court has understood that, in order for the judgment to be fully effective, the judicial authorities must act promptly and without delay, since the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the implementation procedures be accessible to the parties, without hindrance or undue delay in order to quickly, simply, and comprehensively satisfy their purpose. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 106, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107. 197 Regarding the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim, the Court has stated that to determine whether the time was reasonable, the effects caused by the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person concerned must be taken into account considering, among other factors, the matter in dispute. Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, para. 148, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107. 198 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 of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107. 199 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 71, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107. 196 46