31 reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the judicial activity of the interested party, and (c) the 167 behavior of the judicial authorities. However, the pertinence of applying these three criteria to determine the reasonableness of the time of the proceedings depends on the circumstances of each 168 case. 149. The Commission reiterates that whenever state agents cause a person’s death, the State has the obligation to conduct an investigation in order to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of 169 the events and thereby to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidence. 150. In the following paragraphs, the Commission will analyze the due diligence exercised by the State in the proceedings brought before the domestic courts in connection with the deaths of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and the injuries inflicted on Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, in order to determine whether they were pursued in accordance with the right to a fair trial and within a reasonable time, and whether an effective remedy was offered to ensure the rights of access to justice and of redress to the families of the deceased and Mr. Bejarano Laura. Complexity of the matter 151. The Commission notes, from the established facts, that the very first police formalities conducted on the day of the incident indicated that the crimes were presumably committed by members of the Peruvian Army. The Commission also notes that all the witnesses interviewed by both the police and the prosecution service in August 1994 stated that a solider had discharged his weapon and that, as a result, Zulema Tarazona and Norma Pérez had been killed and Luis Bejarano had been injured. In addition, on the very day of the incident, the police were able to identify the member of the patrol who fired the shot. Thus, the established facts indicate that around 9:15 p.m. on August 9, 1994, a National Police specialist proceeded to partially disassemble the weapons of the 15 soldiers who made up the military patrol commanded by Sgt. Maj. Antonio Vivas Chapillequen, noting that the FAL rifle belonging to one of the soldiers appeared to have been recently discharged. That same soldier acknowledged in his initial statement to the prosecutor’s office, given 13 days after the facts, that he had fired “although it was never his intention to fire on the vehicle,” and that he had failed to inform his immediate superior “out of fear that something would happen” to him. This version of events was corroborated on August 17, 1994, by Corporal Arica, who was with the soldier in question at the time of the incident. 152. In addition, the Commission notes that almost 14 years after the incident, the soldier who discharged his FAL rifle against the bus admitted his guilt in the facts, as set down in the judgment of July 28, 2008. 153. Consequently, the Commission believes that the matter at hand was not complex. 167 IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11.506), December 27 2002, para. 76. See also: I/A Court H. R., López Álvarez Case, para. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, para. 166; and Acosta Calderón Case, para. 105; UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 of August 23, 2007, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, para. 35. 168 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 171. 169 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 108; I/A Court H. R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C No. 150, para. 80; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 273; 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. 120. Similarly, see also: I/A Court H. R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 111.