34 than would be reasonable, in principle, to deliver a final judgment in a specific case.116 The total duration of the criminal proceeding must be factored in when determining whether the length of time was reasonable. In criminal matters this period of time starts with the first procedural act taken against a specific person deemed to be the party likely responsible for a certain crime, and ends when a final judgment is handed down.117 172. The jurisprudence constante of the organs of the inter-American system has taken into consideration three elements that are relevant to the examination of the present case, namely: a) the complexity of the case; b) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and c) the procedural activities of the interested party.118 173. In the instant case, the Commission has evaluated all of the procedural documents that comprise the case file provided by the petitioners and not disputed by the State. The finding facts show that the criminal case took nine years and five months which ended with a sentence of 18 months in prison for unintentional homicide. It is important to clarify that in the following analysis, the InterAmerican Commission will focused on determine whether the said period is compatible with the guarantee of reasonable time according to the Inter-American standards on the subject, as well as well as whether the investigation and criminal proceeding as a whole were carried out with due diligence to properly clarify the facts and impose appropriate sanctions. Thus, the Commission emphasizes that in this second point its analysis does not constitute a review of the sentence for the crime of unintentional homicide under the realization that what happened was accidental, but an evaluation of the process that lead to such judicial decision in order to verify if it was due to a serious and thorough investigation, or if it took place as a result of a lack of diligence in the investigations that prevented evaluate in an adequate manner the divergent versions of what happened. 174. With this clarification on the scope and content of the evaluation to be conducted by the Commission, and taking into account the facts established on the investigation and criminal proceeding, it will analyzed the fulfillment of the State’s obligation related to justice in the following order: i) the duration of the investigation and criminal proceedings; and ii) the due diligence practiced in the investigation. 1. The duration of the investigation and criminal proceedings 175. From the documents it has available from the file of the case in the domestic courts, the Commission observes that the First Police Precinct began the investigation on September 23, 1992,, and the final verdict in the case was delivered on February 26, 2002, with the decision that the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered on the cassation appeal filed in the case. In 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paragraph 142. 117 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraph 129; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 104; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 168. 118 IACHR, Merits Report No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11.506), December 27, 2002, paragraph 76. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraph 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 166; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 105; UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 of August 23, 2007, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paragraph 35.