- 109 - B.1.4 Conclusion concerning the duty to investigate with due diligence 305. Based on the acknowledgement of responsibility, as well as the findings in this judgment, the Court concludes that, owing to the initial flaws in the investigation, the failure to assess the evidence presented to the FEVIM by the women victims in this case, and also the failure to investigate all those who were possibly criminally responsible and to follow logical lines of investigation, the Mexican State did not act with the due diligence required of investigations into the torture and sexual violence suffered by the eleven women victims in this case. B.2 Reasonable time 306. The Commission and the representatives argued that the State had violated the reasonable time established in Article 8(1). In this regard, the Court has reiterated that the reasonable time should be examined in each specific case in relation to the total duration of the proceedings, from the initial procedural act until the final judgment is handed down. 415 Thus, it has considered four elements to analyze whether the guarantee of reasonable time has been met, namely: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. The Court recalls that it is for the State to justify, based on these criteria, the reason why it has required the time that has elapsed to process the case and, if it does not do so, the Court has broad authority to make its own assessment in this regard.416 307. In this case, the State conducted two investigations, one at the federal level and the other at the state level. Regarding the former, the Court recalls that, after three years, the FEVIM waived jurisdiction in favor of the PGJEM, ending the preliminary inquiry without having indicted anyone. In the case of the state investigation which began on May 10, 2006, the Court notes that, although preliminary inquiry 466/06 resulted in the indictment of several persons and the launching of several criminal proceedings, to date, no final ruling has been issued. Consequently, the Court will now determine whether the time that has elapsed is reasonable based on the criteria established in its case law. 308. This Court has taken different criteria into account to determine the complexity of the proceedings.417 In this case, the Court observes that the characteristics of the proceedings do not represent a particularly great complexity, considering that: (a) the probative difficulties resulted, to a great extent, from the lack of initial diligence in the gathering of evidence (supra paras. 272 and ff.), and (b) both the victims and the police agents who took part in the operations were not find it necessary to analyze whether there was also evidence indicating that the said authorities ordered, instigated or incited the perpetration of the acts of torture. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 180. 415 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 Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 180. 416 Including, 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 remedy established by domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 180. 417