39 * * * 132. Regarding the promptness of the general process, the Court has indicated that the “reasonable term” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention, must be appreciated in terms of the total duration of the proceeding until the final judgment is pronounced137. The right of access to justice implies that the solution of the controversy should occur within a reasonable term138, since a prolonged delay could constitute in itself a violation of the right to a fair trial139. In this sense, the lack of a response by the State is a determining element in assessing if Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention have been breached140. 133. In the instant case the Court observes that, 15 years after the application was filed by FAMDEGUA, the criminal proceeding is still in its initial stage, which contributes to the excessive delay in the administration of justice. Additionally, the Court notes that the State did not justify this situation, but recognized having incurred in the delay. 134. It is worth noting that in other cases related to human rights violations in Guatemala, the Court has proven the unduly delay in the Guatemalan judicial system141, as well as the violations of the rights to a due process142. In this sense, the Court indicated that the Judgments on the cases of Myrna Mack Chang, Maritza Urrutia, Plan de Sanchez Massacre, Molina Theissen and Tiu Tojin, all on human rights violations during the armed conflict in Guatemala, after 13, 11, 22, 22 and 17 years after the events, respectively, the State’s obligations of investigating and ending the impunity remained unfulfilled143, which evidences a pattern of judicial delay in Guatemala in investigations of grave human rights violations. 137 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 135, para. 78, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 154. 138 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, supra note 137, para. 71 to 73; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 135, para. 79, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 154. 139 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 154, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 124. 140 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 115; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 135, para. 95, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 206. 141 “The Guatemalan system for justice administration was inefficient in guaranteeing compliance with the law and the protection of the rights of the victims and their next of kin in almost all of the human rights violations committed at that time.” Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 51. 142 “[U]ntil today, the courts of justice of Guatemala have proven incapable of effectively investigating, processing, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible for the human rights violations” and that “[i]n numerous occasions the courts of justice have acted subordinated to the Executive Power or military influence, ‘applying rules or legal provisions contrary to due process or omitting applying the corresponding ones’”. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, para. 22. Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 18, para. 134(1)3). 143 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 18, para. 272; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 176; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2003. Series C No. 116, para. 95; Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 79, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 72. Cited in the Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with Judgment, supra note 142, para. 23.