releases submitted by the representatives together with their closing arguments, 260 the Court notes that these do not have any official letterhead of the PGJEM, so it is not possible to unequivocally verify their source. Nor did the representatives provide additional evidence to help identify their origin. Furthermore, these press releases, for the most part, provide detailed information on the different procedural acts that took place in the context of criminal case 88/2002. Finally, regarding the government report mentioned by the Commission, this was not submitted as evidence by the Commission or the representatives, so it is not possible for this Court to verify the allegations in this regard. 263. Consequently, the Court lacks sufficient elements to determine the violation of the right to the presumption of innocence of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz due to the publication of the press releases or articles mentioned above. 264. As for the representatives’ argument concerning the violation of the right to dignity and honor of Daniel García Ortiz and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz due to these same statements (Article 11 of the American Convention), the Court finds that the analysis of the violation of this right is subsumed in the considerations on the violation of the presumption of innocence due to the official public statements emanating from the press releases of the PGJEM. Therefore, the Court will not make any additional observations in this regard. B.4. The principle of reasonable time of the proceedings (Article 8(1) of the American Convention) 265. The Court has established that the analysis of reasonable time must be carried out in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the process and its particular characteristics, which may also include the execution of the final judgment. Thus, it has considered four elements to determine 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 alleged victim. The Court recalls that it is incumbent upon the State to justify, based on these criteria, the reason why it has required the time elapsed to process the case and, if it fails to do so, the Court has broad powers to form its own opinion in this regard. The Court also reiterates that that it is necessary to consider the total duration of the proceedings, from the initial procedural act until the final judgment is handed down, including any appeals that may be filed. 261 266. Regarding the first element, this Court has taken into account several criteria to determine the complexity of a case, including: a) the complexity of the evidence; 262 b) the number of parties involved in the proceedings 263 or the number of victims; 264 c) the time elapsed since the alleged 260 Cf. “Press releases regarding the arrest of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz” (evidence file, folios 21905 to 21909) and “Media exposé of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz as a murderer” (evidence file, folios 21910 to 21911). 261 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71; Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 123; Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 18, 2022. Series C No. 475, para. 126. 262 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 166, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 126. 263 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 106; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, para. 91. 264 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 156; Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352, para. 107, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 424. Also, see the Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, -68-