21 rather in the first seven years after the facts occurred. sufficient for a tribunal to pronounce judgment.19 That lapse was more than 63. The Court has previously held that a five-year period, counted from the date of the order instituting proceedings, goes beyond what could be construed as a reasonable time.20 The same principle applies in the instant case. 64. Based on the foregoing considerations, and after a thorough review of procedures in the domestic criminal justice system, calculating the period that began on January 29, 1991 –the date of the order instituting the military criminal inquiryto March 25, 1998 –the date on which the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the regular courts- and then from May 14, 1998 –the date of the order to take up the case, issued by the Regional Prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation- to the present –without a judgment of conviction being pronounced- this Court finds that in all, the criminal case has gone on for more than 10 years, a period that exceeds the parameters of reasonability referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention.21 65. Consequently, Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 25(1) thereof, gives the victims’ relatives the right to have the victims’ death effectively investigated by the State authorities; to have the persons responsible for these unlawful acts prosecuted; where appropriate, they have the right to have the proper punishment applied to the responsible parties, and they are entitled to be compensated for the damages and injuries they have suffered. 66. For all these reasons, this Court declares that the State violated articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the relatives of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas, Edebraes Norverto Cerón Rojas, NN/ Moisés or NN/Moisés Ojeda and Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy. VIII APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) 67. The Commission requests that the State be ordered to make reparation to the families of the victims, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, through payment of just compensation, and that it order measures of non-recurrence or of satisfaction. It also requests that Colombia change the armed forces’ rules and programs to adapt them to the international norms applicable to domestic armed conflicts. It is also asking that the State be ordered to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the victims’ relatives to litigate in the domestic courts and before the Commission and the Court, and the reasonable fees of their attorneys, issues that, according to the Commission, should be addressed during the reparations phase. 68. The State, for its part, argues that the formulation of the Commission’s request is unclear, particular the reference to the deduction of the amounts already paid in pecuniary damages in the administrative law cases, given that the relatives of 19 Las Palmeras Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, paragraph 38. 20 Cf., Genie Lacayo Case, Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, paragraph 81. 21 Cf., Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 8, paragraph 152; and Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 10, paragraph 73.