denial of justice, including the re-victimization of the complainants. 189 124. Thus, in the instant case, the Court finds that the administrative decisions appealed to social prejudices about affectionate acts carried out by a homosexual couple and their alleged impact on other people (particularly children), thus shielding the supermarket’s actions without further analysis of what really happened and the reasons that might have justified the company’s behavior. In effect, the administrative decisions were motivated by discriminatory reasons based on the sexual orientation of Mr. Olivera and his partner, thus denying him access to an impartial body that would analyze his complaint in accordance with inter-American standards of due process. This also had an impact, necessarily, on the right to personal liberty and privacy, since it affected the right of Mr. Olivera and his partner to live their personal and social lives according to their own choices and convictions 190 and entailed an unjustified interference with their right to personal autonomy, personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and with the outside world. 191 B.4.3 Reasonable time 125. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice in cases of human rights violations must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to know the truth of what happened and to have the relevant authorities investigate, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those found to be responsible. 192 No less important is the Court’s view that a prolonged delay in the proceedings may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 193 126. The Court has established that an assessment of reasonable time must be carried out in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the process, which could also include the execution of the final judgment. Thus, it has considered four elements to determine whether the guarantee of a reasonable time was met, namely: a) the complexity of the matter; 194 b) the procedural activity of the interested party; 195 c) the Cf. Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 114. Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 52, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 60. 191 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 141, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 62. 192 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, para. 103. 193 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Leguizamón Zaván v. Paraguay, supra, para. 68. 194 In analyzing the complexity of the matter, the Court has considered, among other criteria, the complexity of the evidence, the plurality of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time that has passed since the violation, the characteristics of the remedies provided by domestic legislation and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 107. 195 Regarding the activity of the interested party to obtain justice, the Court has taken into account whether the latter’s procedural conduct has contributed, to some extent, to unduly prolonging the duration of the proceedings. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107. 189 190 45