81. The Court notes that the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons entered into force for Ecuador on August 26, 2006 and the Integral Organic Code was adopted in 2014. Thus, it was only until February 2014 that the State defined the offense of forced disappearance in its domestic law and included in that law the elements that this criminal offense should contain according to Article II of the Inter-American Convention. However, in September 2011, due to the work of the Truth Commission, the Prosecutor General initiated an inquiry in relation to the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán (supra para. 60). The representative did not provide information or elements that would permit the Court to establish the impact of the lack of an autonomous definition of the offense of forced disappearance in the investigations and actions of the search initiated in this case. Therefore, the Court does not have the necessary information to analyze the alleged violation of Article II of the Inter-American Convention. B.3 Guarantee of a reasonable time and the right to know the truth 82. The Court has stated that the right to access to justice implies taking the necessary actions to determine the truth of what occurred and punish those responsible within a reasonable time.83 The Court considers that the process concludes when there is a definitive and final judgment on the matter. It has also considered that a prolonged time may constitute, in and of itself, a violation of the judicial guarantees set out in Article 8(1) of the Convention. 84 83. In this case, although the Court appreciates the State’s recognition of international responsibility, it considers it necessary to emphasize that the judicial investigations into the disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán initiated in 2011, after the work of the Truth Commission and more than 20 years after the filing of the complaint of his disappearance. Since then, the judicial proceedings have not made significant progress to the point that, ten years after the investigations began, these are now in a preliminary stage and have not produced any results, excessively exceeding any time that might be considered reasonable.85 84. The Court considers that the fact that more than 20 years have elapsed between the disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán and the initiation of a judicial investigation and that more than 30 years after the occurrence of the events the investigations have not produced any result, is a violation of the guarantee of a reasonable time. Therefore, the Court does not find it necessary to made a detailed analysis of the elements. 85. In view of the foregoing and of the State’s recognition of international responsibility, the Court finds that the State has violated its obligation to guarantee a reasonable time for the investigation and criminal proceedings of the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 136. 83 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 Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417, para. 122. 84 Cf. In view of the time elapsed and the recognition of international responsibility, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an exhaustive analysis of the elements of a reasonable time. That would imply, in determining whether there was reasonableness in the time elapsed, to make a thorough examination of different elements of the case: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activity of the interested party; c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and d) the harm created to the legal situation 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 Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 193. 85 21