They also asked the Court to order “investigative measures to establish the corresponding responsibilities.” 281. With respect to the request to conclude the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims as soon as possible, the State argued that “it is evident that jurisdictionally and legally, the judge has no legal mechanisms that would allow him to comply with the recommendation to conclude the proceedings in the brief period of time indicated by the Inter-American Commission, because said procedural act does not depend on the will of the judge, but on the way in which the procedural acts are carried out, a decision that also depends on Mr. García Rodríguez and Mr. Reyes Alpízar.” However, aware of the importance of the matter, it indicated that it is committed to “issuing the corresponding judgment as soon as possible, and with full respect for the right to defense of the alleged victims.” 282. In relation to the request for a thorough, diligent and effective investigation, within a reasonable time, to investigate the acts of torture, the State indicated that “regarding the alleged acts of torture denounced […], the Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Investigation of Torture carried out more than 500 procedures, all of them in accordance with inter-American standards on torture, as well as those contained in the Istanbul Protocol.” It added that “the judicial authority decided not to bring a criminal action in the preliminary investigation TLA/MR/III/1973/2006, issued on May 3, 2021. This decision was confirmed on May 18 of the same year by the Regional Prosecutor of Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, and notified to the alleged victims” and that “the alleged victims did not object to this decision.” Accordingly, the State explained that it had “fulfilled its obligation to conduct a thorough, diligent and effective investigation, within a reasonable time, to investigate the acts of torture, in compliance with the parameters of due diligence established in the inter-American standards on the matter […].” To that extent, it “consider[ed] satisfied this recommendation” of the Commission contained in the Merits Report. B.1. Conclusion of the criminal case against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz 283. The Court recalls that in the context of the proceedings against Daniel García Rodríguez and of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, the principle of reasonable time was breached since the victims were deprived of their liberty preventively for 17 years, and continue to this day with measures that restrict their liberty through a tracking and localization system (supra para. 87). Thus, the prolongation of the proceedings along with the uncertainty that this entails for the victims in this case continues to be a factor of anguish that affects their life plans. This may have been exacerbated since the first instance conviction was issued on May 12, 2022 (supra para. 10). 284. The use of torture as a mechanism to obtain confessions or incriminating evidence from a defendant cannot have any consequence other than the exclusion of the evidence. Otherwise, the prohibition of torture would be devoid of content, becoming a merely formal right without any practical effects. In view of the fact that the proceedings are still at the appeal stage, the competent authorities must, ex officio, exclude all incriminating evidence obtained under coercion or torture when ruling on the appeal and in other procedural acts, in order to determine whether or not there are still grounds to establish the criminal responsibility of the accused. Owing to the extreme delay in these proceedings, this Court deems it imperative that the final decision in this case be reached as soon as possible, in strict compliance with the guarantees of due process contained in the American Convention. Within the framework of the process of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court will determine whether the authorities excluded the incriminating evidence obtained under duress in all the procedural acts related to this case. 285. Likewise, although the victims in this case were released from prison in 2019, they continue to suffer measures that restrict their personal liberty and freedom of movement to this day, because, as an alternative precautionary measure to imprisonment, they are obliged to wear electronic geolocation devices (bracelets) at all times until the end of the criminal proceedings. Taking into account the continuation of these restrictions on their freedom, as well as the State’s -72-