30 104. In light of the above, the Court will examine the facts of the instant case, as well as the evidence provided in relation to the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Case 4,227 entitled “Macri, Mauricio. Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty” A) Right to be heard and for the case to be decided within a reasonable time 105. The Court has established that “the reasonable time referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention should be assessed in relation to the total duration of the criminal proceedings against an accused, until the final judgment is handed down” and that, in this regard, the time begins to count when the first judicial decision is taken charging a particular individual with being the person probably responsible for a specific offense.96 106. As the Court has determined (supra para. 59), Mr. Bayarri’s detention took place on November 18, 1991. In addition, the file shows that, on December 20 that year, Court of First Instance No. 25 issued a committal order against him (supra para. 71) and the judgment of first instance sentencing Mr. Bayarri to life imprisonment was handed down on August 6, 2001,97 that is, approximately 10 years later. The appeal filed by the alleged victim was decided in a judgment of the Federal National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of June 1, 2004, acquitting him and ordering his release.98 The Court observes that this judicial proceeding lasted approximately 13 years, the period during which Mr. Bayarri was subjected to preventive detention (supra para. 71). 107. In previous cases, when analyzing the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, the Court has assessed the following elements: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities.99 Nevertheless, [in the instant case,] the Court finds that there was a notorious delay in the abovementioned proceedings, with no reasonable explanation. Consequently, it is not necessary to examine these criteria. Bearing in mind, also, the acknowledgement of the facts that was made (supra paras. 29 and 30), the Court finds that, with regard to the said criminal case, the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. B) Right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself or to plead guilty 108. It has already been established in this judgment that, following torture, Mr. Bayarri confessed to committing several criminal acts (supra para. 87). Furthermore, the Court is aware that Chamber I of the Chamber of Appeals declared that his confession was invalid and annulled the procedural actions arising from it (supra para. 83), which constituted an effective measure to end the consequences of the said violation of judicial guarantees perpetrated to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. As a result, the Court considers it appropriate to emphasize the grounds indicated by Chamber I in this regard: 96 Cf. case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 56, para. 70; Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 150; and case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 79, para. 195. 97 Judgment of August 6, 2001, handed down by Federal Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo30_92.pdf, pages 85 and ff.) 98 Judgment of Chamber 1 of the Federal National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of June 1, 2004 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 1.7, folios 27 to 54). 99 Cf. case of Genie Lacayo, supra note 93, para. 77; case of Escué Zapata, supra note 30, para. 102; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra nota 10, para. 149.