83 on December 10, 1998, the date in which Brazil recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, there was a pending decision regarding a remedy of the State opposing a determination by a judge of first instances for it to present information on the Guerrilha do Araguaia. Nevertheless, after an appeal and other remedies filed by the State, those of which were rejected by the superior tribunals (supra paras. 191 and 204 to 208), the decision became res judicata on October 9, 2007 (supra para. 191). It took more than seven months for the case files to return, on May 2008, to the judge of first instance in attempts to initiate the execution of the ruling.330 Finally, despite said final decision, the execution of the judgment did not commence until 18 months later, on March 12, 2009 (supra para. 191). Even though the judicial authorities ordered the handover of documentation, the Federal State did not offer it based on various arguments and filing numerous motions, ultimately being provided several years after the request. In effect, the Court notes that during the processing of the Ordinary Action, the State affirmed in 1999, that “there was no minimal reasonable evidence of the existence of an alleged ‘report on the [G]uerrilha do Araguaia,’” and in April of 2000, the Ministry of Defense reported on the non-existence of the mentioned report (supra para. 191), while, on July of 2009, the Union presented extensive documentation on the Guerrilha do Araguaia (supra paras. 192 and 210). 223. In regard to the harm generated due to the length of the procedure in the legal situation of the persons involved, as has been done in previous cases,331 the Court does not consider it necessary to analyze this element in order to determine the unreasonableness of the term of the Ordinary Action filed in the present case. 224. The Court states that, since December 10, 1998, nine years have passed to date before the decision became final, on October 9, 2007, and 11 years passed before its execution was ordered, on March 12, 2009, thus excessively surpassing a period, which could be deemed reasonable. 225. The Inter-American Court, as a consequence, concluded that the Ordinary Action in the present case exceeded a reasonable period, and therefore, Brazil violated the right to fair trial [judicial guarantees] established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 13 and 1(1) of the treaty, to the detriment of the persons stated in the terms of paragraph 212 and 213 of the present Judgment. F. Normative Framework 226. The Commission and the representatives referred in their respective briefs to the non-compatibility of the domestic law and the American Convention in what regards the right to information. Nevertheless, they did not specifically demonstrate the facts in which the normative framework is the foundation for the alleged restrictions on access to information. This Court notes that of all the norms indicated by the parties, only the Law No. 8.159/91 was applied to the case in what matters, which constituted the legal foundations used by judicial organs to request the State to provide information on the Guerrilha do Araguaia within the Ordinary Action proceeding. Brazil did not base its denial of the information on the Guerrilla on any restriction established in the law, but rather 330 Cf. Information from the Federal Judge of First Instance, proceeding 82.00.24682-5. Available at http://processual.trf1.jus.br., last visited on October 8, 2010. 331 Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 188, para. 115, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 18, para. 138.