120. In short, the Court concludes that, in the instant case, there was a lack of due diligence on the part of the State authorities due to the absence of judicial control immediately after Mr. López’s arrest, as well as shortcomings in the subsequent forensic investigations into the reported acts of torture suffered by Mr. López, which have hindered the investigation, prosecution and eventual conviction of the perpetrators. 121. Secondly, with regard to the alleged failure to observe the required reasonable period of time, this Court notes that in this case more than 22 years have elapsed since the events occurred without a final judgment having been handed down. Therefore, the standards for reasonableness have been breached, without there being compelling reasons that warrant an analysis of the period of time involved based on the criteria developed in inter-American case law. 209 More than two decades after the events took place, the case remains in total impunity and, consequently, the Court finds it evident that the criminal proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. 122. Therefore, the Court concludes that the shortcomings in the investigation, and the failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement of the criminal proceedings that means that the acts of torture suffered by Mr. López remain in total impunity, reflect a clear denial of justice to the victim in the instant case, which constituted a violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, as well as a breach of the obligations assumed under Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Jorge Luis López Sosa. VII REPARATIONS 123. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 210 124. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the rights that have been violated and repair the harm caused. 211 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to provide different types of reparation in order to fully redress the damage; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, other types of measures such 209 See, for illustrative purposes, Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 113, and Case of Benites Cabrera et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 4, 2022. Series C No. 465, para. 101. 210 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2023. Series C No. 484, para. 130. 211 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 2 and 25, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477, para. 124. 37