ordinary criminal jurisdiction, the Court is not a criminal tribunal in which the criminal responsibility of the individual can be determined,234 so that State responsibility under the Convention should not be confused with the criminal responsibility of private individuals.235 In order to establish that a violation of the rights established in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to determine the guilt of its authors or their intentions, as under domestic criminal law, and it is not necessary to identify individually the agents to which the acts that violate the Convention are attributed.236 It is sufficient that the State has an obligation and that it has failed to comply with it.237 163. In addition, the Court notes that the representatives have not submitted sufficient facts and arguments to consider that the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection is constituted by a failure to investigate the possible criminal responsibility of other military participants in Operation “Relámpago II” who may have taken part in the definition of the launch site and use of the cluster device or who were aware of the presence of the civilian population in the village of Santo Domingo. In addition, as will be analyzed below (infra para. 246), the representatives did not present concrete and specific arguments or evidence that would allow the Court to relate the activity of the multinational companies operating in the area or that had contracts with the Armed Forces with the violations declared in relation to the facts of the case. Even though such hypotheses are plausible, given the significant proportions and results of the airborne operation deployed in this case, insufficient elements have been provided to consider that a more thorough examination of these lines of investigation would lead to a specific violation of the Convention, notwithstanding the implications of these other possible criminal or administrative responsibilities that, in the future, must be determined by the competent domestic authorities in the criminal proceedings that are underway or others that must be initiated. 164. Regarding the reasonableness of the time frame for the investigation, to the extent that it could constitute, in principle and in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees,238 the Court has considered four elements to determine this: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities,239 and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.240 165. The Court considers it evident that this is a complex case; mainly due to all the technical aspects involved in an effective investigation, as well as to the number of victims and actors, members of the Colombian Air Force and the Army, who participated in that specific context of armed conflict in the area. Numerous investigative measures taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office have been referred to, which denote constant actions seeking to determine the facts and a plausible follow-up on logical lines of investigation, notwithstanding the aspects that still need to be investigated. Even though the cassation remedy remains pending a decision, it can be considered that the ordinary jurisdictional authorities have been fulfilling their functions adequately. In addition, although, in this case, the investigation is an obligation ex officio of the State, the victims 234 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 55; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 61 and 62; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 90; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 71, and Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. 235 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 118. 236 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 110; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 141, and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 41. 237 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 113. 238 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 154. 239 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77 and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 112. 240 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 273. ‐ 49 ‐