duplicated orders and requests for evidence that had already been obtained by the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities. 358 This Court has also verified that, owing to the entry into force of the new Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, the case of Eduardo Landaeta was referred to the Second Court of the Transitory Regime on January 7, 2000 (supra para. 105). However, it was not until October 30, 2003, that the Transitory Prosecutor reactivated the investigation, requesting the collaboration of the Criminalistics and Criminal Scientific Investigations Unit (previously the Technical Unit of the Judicial Police), in December 2003. Consequently, the Court observes that there was a lapse of procedural inactivity of more than four and a half years, which, in the Court’s opinion, was not justified by the transition between procedural regimes. 266. When the investigations were concluded, the prosecutor filed charges against the police agents who transferred Eduardo Landaeta in December 2008 (supra para. 112) and the opening of the oral public hearing was set for June 15, 2009, in other words, more than 12 years after the investigation had commenced. The Court has also verified that, in fact, the oral hearing was not held until January 31, 2011; that is, almost one year and nine months after the original date that had been set, owing to around 12 postponements and reschedulings of the public hearing (supra para. 113). In this regard, the Court notes that the main delays and reschedulings were due to the fact that “there was no court available”; in other words owing to the first instance judges in charge of the proceedings; four reschedulings were due to the failure to assist of the defense or of the accused, and one, owing to the prosecutor’s failure to assist (supra para. 113). 267. The Court considers that a prolonged delay, such as the one in this case, constitutes, in principle and in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees. Consequently, it does not find it necessary to include any further considerations on the other elements relating to the reasonable time. B.3.4 Absence of investigations in relation to the detention and the violations of personal integrity 268. The Court has concluded that the State of Venezuela is responsible for the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the minor, Eduardo Landaeta, because he was not brought before a judge or an authority with jurisdiction for juveniles, or informed of the reasons for his detention (supra paras. 164, 166 and 178). However, the Court has verified that the case file does not include any procedure or action aimed at investigating the conduct of the police agents (José Cortez and Carlos Varela) who executed the detention. The evidence before the Court merely shows that these agents were summoned to testify during the investigations into the death of Eduardo Landaeta, but only one of them (José Cortez) attended the proceedings on a single occasion, 359 without the State taking the necessary measures to ensure their appearance. 269. The Court also concluded that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to respect and ensure the right to mental and moral integrity of Eduardo Landaeta, due to a misuse of weapons to the detriment of Eduardo Landaeta (supra para. 104). The case file does not show that any significant measures were taken during that period. 358 The Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities issued the same order on two occasions, requiring the opening of a summary investigation, and summoning the deceased, Eduardo Landaeta, to testify. These orders called for testimony and criminal and correctional records to be obtained that had been requested previously. Cf. Order of August 13, 1998, with a summons to testify issued by the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities of the state of Aragua (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7296), and Order of March 2, 1999 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7099). 359 Despite the different summonses issued for the police agents who had detained Eduardo Landaeta to come forward to testify during the investigations and the criminal proceedings, only one of them testified on a single occasion regarding the detention of the minor. Cf. Testimony of José Guillermo Cortez Aguirre of February 14, 2007 (annexes to the answering brief of the State, folios 7955 to 7957). 76