23 the reparation of any damage caused.62 79. Furthermore, the Court has noted that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be analyzed in relation to the total duration of the proceeding until the final judgment.63 Lastly, the Court has pointed out that the right to access to justice implies that the controversy be solved within a reasonable time;64 an extended delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of the judicial guarantees.65 In this sense, for the Court, the lack of state response is a determinative element when evaluating whether a breach of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention has occurred, because it is directly related to the principle of effectiveness that should permeate the development of such an investigation.66 80. The duty to investigate the cases of forced disappearance necessarily involves carrying out all actions necessary to determine the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person. As this Court has held, only if all the circumstances relating to the violation are clarified, will the State have provided the victim and his next-of-kin with an effective remedy and complied with its general obligation to investigate and punish, allowing the victims' next-of-kin to learn the truth about the whereabouts of the mortal remains and also what happened to the victim.67 81. In addition, this Tribunal Court has also referred to the right of the next-ofkin of the alleged victims to know what happened and who was responsible for the respective events.68 The next of kin of the alleged victims have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin repaired.69 82. In the instant case, the Tribunal considers that the time that passed excessively exceeds the term that may be considered as reasonable in order to conclude the criminal procedure; said procedure was initiated more than 25 years 62 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 16, para. 166; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 10, para. 61; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 142. 63 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series Nº. 35, para. 71; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para 148; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 105. 64 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C Nº 100, para. 114; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008; para. 59 and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 148. 65 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C Nº 94, para. 145; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra note 64, para. 59; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 148. 66 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series Nº 168, para. 115; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 157. 67 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, Merits. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C Nº 22, para. 58; Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C Nº 92, para. 109; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, supra note 39, para. 176. 68 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 16, para. 181; Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 66. para 102; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 146. 69 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C Nº 68, para. 130; Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 66. para 103; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 146.