medical examination was carried out pursuant to the appropriate international standards. 102. The Commission added that 19 years elapsed between the start of the criminal proceedings for the torture alleged by the alleged victim and the beginning of the oral trial on August 20, 2019. It also noted that on December 30, 2019, the accused were acquitted based on an alleged “lack of scientific evidence.” According to the Commission, the judgment was not final, as there were appeals pending. 103. The Commission also argued that the matter was not a particularly complex one, since the facts of the case referred to a specific person and it was possible to investigate the perpetrators because a specific space, time and place were involved. The Commission maintained that the delays in the proceedings were due to the “malicious” actions of the accused’s defense attorneys. In the case of the domestic authorities, the Commission observed that the State had failed to explain or provide specific evidence to demonstrate that the judicial authorities acted with the necessary diligence. Finally, the Commission argued that Mr. López had been denied access to justice because the proceedings had been drawn out for more than 20 years. 104. Therefore, the Commission held that the State had violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with to Article 1(1) thereof, because the investigation was not carried out diligently and within a reasonable period of time. It also concluded that the lack of effective measures to prevent and punish torture also constituted a violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 105. The representative agreed “completely” with the Commission’s assertions in its Merits Report. He added that the criminal proceedings showed that the Paraguayan State was neither capable of, nor interested in, “resolving an event as serious” as the one involved in the instant case. Furthermore, the evidence provided in the complaint and by the Public Prosecution Service had not been properly assessed. The criminal proceedings had been ongoing for more than 20 years without the perpetrators being convicted for the acts of torture committed against Mr. López. The representative also noted that the alleged victim had acted diligently throughout the proceedings. In the specific case, the individuals accused of torturing Mr. López had managed to get the preliminary hearing suspended “more than 17 times,” which showed their objective was to “obstruct the progress of the proceedings” with “malicious intent.” The end result was a lack of judicial protection and of access to justice within a reasonable period of time. 106. The State maintained that it had carried out “an official investigation, diligently and efficiently.” It noted that in the instant case there was no final judgment corroborating the alleged events, while the judgment acquitting the accused had been set aside and a new oral public trial was pending. It also stated that it was aware of the “delays in the process,” but none of the delays were the State’s responsibility. Therefore, the State did not accept that the right to a judicial decision within a reasonable time had been violated. Underscoring the complexity of the matter, the State argued that the case had faced a series of difficulties, including: (i) the need to lift the immunity of one of the accused, (ii) the need to take 161 witness statements and present 39 items of documentary evidence, and (iii) the large number of motions for dismissal and judges recusing themselves. 107. It also pointed out that the criminal proceedings were interrupted mainly due to the action for the declaration of unconstitutionality presented by the Public Prosecution 32