47 annulment should be decided “within a reasonable time,” in accordance with Article 8(1) thereof. 7.3.1. Precautionary measure of constitutional amparo 171. The Court finds that despite Venezuelan laws and judicial precedents regarding the need for prompt and direct determination of the measure submitted, it took 3 years for the CPAM to issue a decision on the requested precautionary amparo. In this Court’s opinion, such delay cannot be justified in any possible way and is contrary to the need for prompt action. Therefore, the Court finds that the State violated Article 25(1) of the Convention, as regards Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha. 7.3.2. Appeal for annulment 172. As explained above, the appeal for annulment was filed more than four years ago and it is still pending. In order to determine if that term is reasonable, the Court, based on its case law, considers it is necessary to take into account: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activity carried out by the interested party, and c) the conduct of judicial authorities.190 Accordingly, the burden was on the State to provide the reasons –based on the criteria described above- that would justify the current absence of a final decision on the merits.191 7.3.2.1. Complexity 173. The State did not detail the reasons leading to ascertain the complexity of the matter and merely alleged that “the consideration of the efficacy of the action should be made taking into account all other effects of the continuous chain of disqualifications that resulted in the organization of an ad-Hoc Chamber.” The Court verifies that such argument is, in fact, related to the procedural activity carried out by the interested party, so it will be analyzed later (infra para. 175). 7.3.2.2 Procedural activity carried out by the interested parties 174. As regards the procedural activity carried out by Mr. Apitz and Rocha, the Court finds that in three instances they requested the Court to render a decision on the appeal filed (supra para. 162). Moreover, the case file does not show that the parties to the case developed any activity resulting in undue delay of proceedings. Consequently, the Court finds that there was no attempt to delay proceedings on the part of the victims; on the contrary, they acted diligently in order to obtain a decision by the CPAM. 7.3.2.3 Activity by judicial authorities 190 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Kimel, supra note 8, para. 97, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 12, para. 78. 191 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 191.