taken charging a particular individual with being the person probably responsible for a specific offense."98 When analyzing the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, the Commission points out that a case by case analysis of particular circumstances is required and, under Article 8.1 of the Convention, the following elements need to be assessed: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities., and d) the effects that a delay in the proceedings might have on the legal situation of the victim.99. 98. Mr. Cortez was subject to criminal proceedings for, altogether, 12 years and six months, from February 1997 to September 2009, when a ruling of prescription was applied. The State made no attempt to justify such a delay based on the aforementioned criteria, failing to comply with the burden of proof incumbent upon it. In any case, the IACHR notes that the matter was not especially complex and there is nothing in the case file that could warrant the length of time taken. Rather, the information available indicates that the case was frozen for many years , without there being any actions by Mr. Cortez that could be construed as having hampered progress in the case. 99. In light of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violating the right to reasonable time established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Cortez. D. Right to private property (Article 21.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) 100. In their jurisprudence, both the Commission and the Court have developed a brad concept of property, which comprises, among other aspects, the use and enjoyment of “property,” defined as those material objects susceptible of being appropriated, as well as any rights which may be part of a person’s assets.100 In addition, the Court has protected acquired rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into personal net worth.101 The Commission recalls that the right to property is not absolute and, accordingly, may be subject to restrictions and limitations, provided that the latter are imposed through appropriate legal channels and in accordance with the parameters established in Article 21 of the American Convention.102 101. In the instant case, Mr. Cortez paid a bond in the amount of US$1,500 to obtain his release on December 19, 1997. The Commission has already established that the detention ordered on that occasion was arbitrary and constituted a violation of the presumption of innocence because it was not based on procedural purposes. The Commission also already established that Mr. Cortez should not have been tried in the military criminal jurisdiction, so that all decisions taken in that jurisdiction that impaired his rights must be understood to contravene the Convention. Accordingly, the IACHR considers that the payment of a bond under such circumstance constituted impairment of Mr. Cortez' property through to the moment when the money was returned on February 28, 2000. 102. In light of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violating the right established in Article 21 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Cortez. I/A Court HR. of Bayarri v. Argentina. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, par. 107. Baldeón García Case v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, par. 150'; and Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, Judgment of January 29, 1997, par. 77. 99 I/A Court HR. Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 155. 100 IACHR, Case 12.357, Application to the I/A Court H.R., Members of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru, April 1, 2008, par. 72. I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 174. 101 I/A Court HR. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, par. 102. 102 I/A Court HR. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, par. 54. 98 19