from the one in the provision that grants the powers to the state authority that would formally justify its action. 45 Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the Colombian State violated the right to judicial protection established at Article 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia. 2. Reasonable time in relation to the remedy of labor appeal 79. The Commission recalls that Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes, as one of the elements of due process, that the courts are to decide the cases submitted to them in a reasonable time. According to the terms of that provision, the Commission shall take into consideration, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the following elements: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (iv) the impact on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding. 46 The Inter-American Court has established that a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees 47 ; accordingly, it is up to the State to set forth and prove why more than a reasonable time has been required to issue a final judgment in a particular case. 48 80. The IACHR recalls that in the instant case, on December 13, 2006, the petitioner appealed the decision that denied her action in the trade union jurisdiction, which was resolved on December 22, 2010 by the Superior Court of Cartagena, i.e. more than four years after it was filed. The State indicated that the delay was due to the number of matters before the Court. 81. The Commission notes that the matter was not at all complex, as it had to do only with determining whether the alleged victim was protected by the right to form and join trade unions and the petitioner set the proceeding in motion through the remedy, thus the delay was due to the actions of the State. The IACHR further considers that the State’s generic argument that the delay was due to the large number of matters before the Court is not sufficient to excuse it from its obligation to decide the remedy pursued in a reasonable time. 82. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State violated the guarantee of a reasonable time established at Article 8(1) of the American Convention in relation to the obligation established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Yenina Martínez Esquivia. C. Political rights 49 83. Article 23(1)(c) established the right to gain access to public office “under general conditions of equality.” The Court has interpreted this article indicating that “when a judge’s tenure is arbitrarily impaired, the right to judicial independence recognized in Article 8(1) of the American I/A Court HR. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 191. 46 IACHR, Report No. 111/10, Case 12,539, Merits, Sebastián Claus Furlan and family, Argentina, October 21, 2010, para. 100. I/A Court HR, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 164. 45 I/A Court HR. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 47 48 I/A Court HR. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142. 49 Article 23 of the American Convention establishes, at the relevant part: “1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: … c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings.” 14