few meters from the main square in Cajatambo. On the other hand, it stated that “these factors alone do not prove with certainty that the accused ordered or executed actions that resulted in the disappearance of the victim; especially when there is evidence that proves his version of the facts,” 325 without then assessing the evidence that supported the accused’s version of the events in relation to the “indications of the perpetration of the offense.” 198. In the instant case, the Court considers that the relationship is evident between, on the one hand, the application of the principle of in dubio pro reo and the argument of the lack of certainty about the authorship of the enforced disappearance that led to the acquittal of the only person accused and, on the other hand, the prolonged inactivity at certain periods of the investigation, as well as the lack of due diligence and the refusal to provide the information on the military personnel. 199. Based on all the foregoing, the Court concludes that this second investigation before the ordinary jurisdiction did not comply with the obligation of due diligence and thoroughness. B.3. Reasonable time 200. The Court has indicated that investigations must be conducted within a reasonable time in order to clarify the facts and punish all those responsible for the violation of human rights. 326 The Court has also stated that “the right of access to justice is not exhausted with the processing of domestic proceedings, but it must also ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin that all necessary measures are taken in order to discover the truth about what happened and to punish those eventually found responsible.” 327 201. Regarding the guarantee of a reasonable time, the Court has established that four elements must be taken into consideration in order to establish whether the time is reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, 328 and (d) the effects that the delay in the proceeding may have on the legal situation of the victim. 329 202. Regarding the first element, the Court has considered that the facts relating to a disappearance in a context of violence entail a certain complexity, taking into account that different degrees of responsibility exist at different levels; 330 in other words, that they usually involve illegal acts committed by criminal structures and not by a single individual and this must be reflected in the investigations, as well as due to the refusal to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim supported by a supposed record of release. This assertion does not mean, however, that it is reasonable for the judicial authorities to deliver a final judgment 22 years after the initial complaint 325 Supreme final judgment R.N. No. 1071-2012 issued by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic on April 17, 2013 (evidence file, volume XII, annexes to the brief with the State’s final arguments, folios 5419 to 5434). 326 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 188. 327 Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 188, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 188. 328 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 77, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 189. 329 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 189. 330 150. Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 203, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 73