79 cultural characteristics of the victims. Furthermore, possible links between those directly responsible for the sexual violence and their hierarchical superiors should be investigated, as well as any elements that would demonstrate discriminatory intent and/or the intent to commit genocide. 318 257. Therefore, the Court considers that the State failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate the serious human rights violations that occurred and/or were alleged in the instant case, including, alleged acts of violence, rape, forced labor, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of genocide. 258. The Commission also alleged that the State violated Article 24 of the American Convention by failing to investigate the pattern of racial discrimination that allowed the persecution of the Maya indigenous people. In this regard, in previous cases, the Court has established violations of Article 24 of the Convention when it found a violation of access to justice based on discriminatory criteria. 319 However, in this case, the Commission did not allege specific acts of discrimination in the context of the investigations that prevented the victims’ next of kin from having access to justice because they belonged to the Maya indigenous people. Thus, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to rule on this alleged violation. B.3. Right to know the truth and reasonable time 259. With respect to the length of the proceedings in general, this Court has indicated that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings until the final judgment is delivered. The right of access to justice implies that the dispute must be resolved within a reasonable time, since a prolonged delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 320 In this regard, the Court has usually considered the following elements to determine the reasonableness of the time: 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. However, in this case approximately 34 years have passed since the massacre at Rwanda); ICTR, Trial Ch I. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Jean-Paul. Judgment, Sep. 2, 1998. paras. 505-509 and 516; Trial Ch I. Prosecutor v. Musema, Alfred. Judgment, En. 27, 2000. paras. 908 and 933 (884-936); ICTY, Trial Ch. Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić. Review of the indictments pursuant to rule 61 of the rules of procedures and evidence, Jul. 11, 1996. par. 93; ICTY, Trial Ch. Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić. Judgment, Aug. 2, 2001. par. 509; United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 50/192, Rape and Abuse of Women in the Areas of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia. A/RES/50/192, December 22, 1995, p.3; United Nations Security Council, Women and Peace and Security. Doc S/PRST/2007/5, March 7, 2007, p.2.; Report of the Secretary General according to Security Council Resolution 1820 of July 15, 2009. para. 22., and ICRC, Rule 93. 318 In this regard, see: Cf. CPI, Situation in the Central African Republic in the case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, March 21, 2016, Section VI, (B) and (F), paras. 634 to 638 and 693 to 741; CPI Policy Paper on Sexual and gender-based crimes, June of 2014, pp. 17, 25, 26 and 43. Available at: https://www.icccpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2016_02238.PDF and https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Policy-Paper-on-Sexual-andGender-Based-Crimes--June-2014.pdf; ICTR, Prosecution of Sexual Violence. Lessons Learned from the Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court for Rwanda, January 30, 2014, pp 8 a 24, 28 to 32 and 37. Available at: http://w.unictr.org/sites/unictr.org/files/legal-library/140130_prosecution_of_sexual_violence.pdf 319 For example, in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú, both against Mexico, the Court concluded that the lack of an interpreter that would enable the victims to participate fully in their own cases constituted discrimination in access to justice. In the Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, the Court considered that in order to guarantee access to justice for the victims - as members of the Mayan indigenous people - without discrimination, the State had to ensure that they could understand and be understood in the legal proceedings, by providing them with interpreters or other effective means to that end. Likewise, in the cases of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, and Veliz Franco et al., and Velásquez Paiz v. Guatemala, the Court found that the failure to investigate the violence suffered by the victims in those cases was due to the use, on the part of the justice operators, of discriminatory stereotypes. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 201; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 185; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 100; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, paras. 272 and 278; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, paras. 212 and 213, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, paras. 177, 183, 186 to 189. 320 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 237.