remedies recognized by the national legislation in order to protect the appellants’ procedural rights and interests cannot be used against them. 271 In this sense, the State’s argument that the procedural conduct of the alleged victims is responsible for the prolongation of the judicial proceedings is not acceptable. 270. Regarding the third element, the Court notes that it is clear from the analysis of the facts of the case, and as mentioned in the conviction of May 12, 2022, that much of the investigative activity was carried out during the first years of the proceedings, and that subsequently there were periods of procedural inactivity, specifically in relation to case 88/2022, and the determination of responsibility for the murder for which the alleged victims in this case were being prosecuted. 271. Finally, regarding the degree of impact on the legal situation of the alleged victims, it is evident that the extraordinary length of the criminal proceedings had a significant impact on the prolongation of the precautionary measure restricting their liberty, which lasted for approximately 17 years. Furthermore, it should be recalled that the precautionary measures restricting their liberty continue to this day, pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings against them (supra para. 87). 272. In view of the foregoing, the delay of more than 21 years in the investigation and trial since the murder of Mayor María de los Ángeles Tamés Pérez in 2001, and more than 20 years since the alleged victims were linked to this case, cannot be explained by the complexity of the proceedings or by the conduct of the alleged victims, but rather by the dilatory conduct attributable to the State. Therefore, the Court finds grounds to conclude that the principle of reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention was violated to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, due to the excessive duration of the proceedings in which they were involved. B.5. Conclusion 273. In conclusion, this Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the principle of reasonable time, and the rule of exclusion of evidence obtained under coercion, contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(3) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Finally, the State is also responsible for a violation of the right to defense, and the right to question witnesses and obtain their appearance contained in Articles 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), and 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez. IX. REPARATIONS 272 274. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation 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. 273 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 174, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, supra, para. 117. 271 272 Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 273 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Bissoon et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 53. -70-