19. Therefore, “with respect to the Peruvian State’s recognition of international responsibility for violating the right to a reasonable period in the criminal proceedings undertaken before the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, as set forth in report 535-2011-JUS/PPES, the State of Peru asked the Court to consider the points discussed in the answering brief, which outline the objective reasons for the delay in processing the criminal case.” Finally, the State reiterated “its serious commitment to finalize the criminal proceedings as quickly as possible, for which purpose [it stated that it was] adopting the necessary measures […], and there was no denial of justice whatsoever.” 20. The Commission noted that, while the State’s recognition that it had violated the right to a reasonable period in the instant case was a positive step and should have full effect, there were several points in its brief in which the State appeared to rationalize the delay. The Commission asked the Court to give due consideration to the recognition and accordingly hold that the State’s comments to justify the delay not hold legal effect. 21. The representatives recalled that the Court had expressly held on several occasions that a State’s recognition of responsibility before the Inter-American Commission produces full legal effect. Accordingly, the representatives held that the Court should “grant full legal effect to the State’s acquiescence before the Commission and, in application of the rule of estoppel, find that the State is not entitled to present the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Finally, the representatives felt that, “because the State does not elaborate on its recognition of responsibility, […] it is essential for this Court to discuss the proven facts of the case involving this violation and how it occurred, in view of the context and circumstances of the case.” The representatives reiterated that the State itself, in its answering brief, had drawn attention to report 535-2011-JUS/PPES, acknowledging responsibility for the excessive amount of time taken in processing the criminal case under discussion, and therefore viewed that “the acquiescence should have full legal effect at this stage of the process.” Considerations of the Court 22. While the case was being processed before the Commission, the State had submitted report 535-2011-JUS/PPES, dated December 6, 2011 (supra para. 2.d), outlining progress made with the recommendations contained in the Inter-American Commission’s Report on the Merits No. 66/11 issued on March 31, 2011. The State’s brief said the following under the heading “Recognition of responsibility for excessive time in conducting the criminal proceedings”: […] as the State of Peru has indicated in earlier reports, the Peruvian criminal procedural laws do not set a time limit for processing a criminal trial; however, the principles of proportionality and reasonableness do apply throughout Peru’s legal system. Therefore, the State of Peru acknowledges delay in the judicial proceedings for these cases. We do find it important for the Commission to consider that this excessive amount of time in processing the criminal trial is not due to any wish whatsoever to deny justice, but unfortunately, to organizational issues in the court system and actions by the National Council of the Judiciary, among other things […].”15 [emphasis original] 23. When the State lodged its answering brief in the procedure before this Court, it took as a premise that it had issued its acceptance of international responsibility before the Commission for having violated the right to a reasonable period, regardless of the procedural stage when this recognition took place. That is, the terminology that the State used in its answering brief clearly reveals that the State sees the paragraph quoted above as a recognition Report 535-2011-JUS/PPES, dated December 6, 2011, submitted by the State of Peru to the Inter-American Commission, para. 24 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission., volume IV, folio 3333). 15