Consequently, the decision of November 10, 2003, does not reveal a well-founded and reasoned analysis 313 of the application of legitimate defense, in light of the standards of proportionality under domestic law and the relevant international standards. In addition, the irregularities in the actions of the police agents were not taken into account, leaving the lifeless body of Igmar Landaeta in the Outpatient Clinic, following which they had left without identifying themselves, which could have constituted further evidence of the perpetration of a wrongful act, among other factors mentioned in this Judgment (supra paras. 145 and 146). 245. In addition, the Court finds that, owing to the irregularities and omissions during the investigations established by this Court (supra paras. 230 to 235), the agents of justice did not necessarily have the technical evidence that could have helped determine the truth about the events with greater certainty in the domestic sphere, owing to the contradictory versions that existed, as well as those responsible. 246. Furthermore, the Court’s case law concerning reasonable time 314 has considered the following factors to determine whether the time has been reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the actions of the judicial authorities, 315 and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. 316 Regarding the first element, the Court notes the existence of some complex factors, 317 which do not justify a delay in the criminal proceedings, which lasted seven years. With regard to the second element, the Court notes that the victims have played an active role during the investigations and the criminal proceedings (supra paras. 84, 89 and 95). 247. In the case of the third element, the Court underlines that the State of Venezuela has recognized the existence of a judicial delay in the case of Igmar Landaeta, justifying self-defense.” Article 66 of the same Code stipulates that “anyone who exceeds the limits imposed by the law in the case described in paragraph 1 of the preceding article, and by the authority who gave the order in the case described in paragraph 2 of that article, and anyone who shall use excessive force in self-defense or in the means used to save himself from grave and imminent danger, doing more than necessary, shall be penalized with the corresponding punishment, reduced by one-third to two-thirds […].” 313 In this regard, the Court has indicated that “the grounds are the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.” Thus, “the obligation to provide the grounds is one of the ‘due guarantees’ included in Article 8(1) of the Convention to safeguard the right to due process.” Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 107; Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 141, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 109. 314 The concept of reasonable time established in Article 8 of the American Convention is closely connected to the simple, prompt and effective remedy established in its Article 25. Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 155, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 188. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice is not exhausted with the processing of domestic proceedings, but must also ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin that everything necessary is done to know the truth of what happened and for those found responsible to be punished. Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 188, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 200. The Court has also asserted that the reasonableness of the time must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings, from the first procedural action until the final judgment is delivered, including any appeals that may eventually be filed. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 217. 315 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 Osorio Rivera and family members, supra, para. 201. 316 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 Osorio Rivera and family members, supra, para. 201. 317 Regarding the complexity of the case, the Court observes that: (a) there is only one victim; (b) the incident occurred in a public place in the presence of witnesses; (c) the investigations and the possibilities of collecting evidence were immediate, the day the incident occurred; (d) there were only two suspects, who also acknowledged their intervention in the incident, and (e) the fact that there were contradictory versions of the circumstances of the death of Igmar Landaeta introduces certain particularly complex characteristics. 67