Court to presume that some officials would have reasons to consider that their impartiality was compromised – there is no justification for the fact that over approximately six years in the case of the actions of unconstitutionality, and more than nine years with regard to the appeals for clarification, the Constitutional Court was unable to sit owing to the disqualifications, without there being any way of assessing and, as applicable, verifying the validity of the reasons cited to refuse to hear matters that the said Chamber was obliged to decide. 173. Lastly, regarding the effects on the legal situation of the presumed victims, the Court has no evidence to analyze this aspect in this specific case. 174. Based on the above, the Court considers that the processing and deciding of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by the presumed victims, as well as the appeal for clarification filed by Mr. Ríos Ávalos, were unreasonably delayed. 175. The fact that, to date, the appeal for clarification filed by Mr. Fernández Gadea against Judgment No. 952 has not been decided merits special mention. His appeal was filed on February 1, 2010, and more than eleven years have passed without a response It should be added that, following the decease of the interested party, “his heirs” continued taking steps to obtain the corresponding decision.179 In this regard, although the jurisdictional organ admitted the different briefs that were submitted and even processed a disqualification that they filed, 180 it did not respond to the request for clarification. It could be supposed that diverse factors might explain the omission of a decision; however, this was not the case with regard to the appeals for clarification filed by the Prosecutor General and Mr. Ríos Ávalos in relation to Judgment No. 952. Nonetheless, the right to judicial protection required the jurisdictional organ to issue a ruling in which, at least, it indicated whether or not it was in order to hear the appeal and stated the reasons for its decision.181 176. Consequently, the State violated the guarantee of a reasonable time recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention. B.3. General conclusion 177. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea. VIII REPARATIONS Cf. Briefs presented on December 28, 2010, May 21, June 5, September 28 and October 3, 2012; June 12 and 20, 2013; March 15, 2016, and September 17, 19 and 26, 2019, that appear in the case file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 12699, 12719, 12721, 12722, 12725 to 12733, 12737 to 12745, 12791, 12793, 12873, 12877 and 12887). 180 Cf. Inter alia, Resolution of October 23, 2012, of the Supreme Court of Justice, and report of November 19, 2013, on the disqualification filed, included in the case file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 12735, 12755 and 12756). 181 In their arguments, the representatives included other facts related to the lack of access of the members of Mr. Fernández Gadea’s family to the case file of his action of unconstitutionality. However, these facts exceed the factual framework contained in the Merits Report; therefore, the Court will not analyze them. 179 44