Moreover, in its judgment of December 14, 2011, the Appellate Court acknowledged that important evidence had not been obtained during the investigation, without any reasonable justification.137 Even though some of these omissions were rectified during the second judicial proceedings, the lack of diligence during the initial moments of the investigation had a negative impact on the possibility of clarifying the facts. 110. Taking all the above into consideration, the Court concludes that all existing lines of investigation were not investigated, or at least not thoroughly, despite the existence of reasonable indications. Also, given the context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela, especially in Aragua state, it concludes that the State failed to take this context into account in the investigation even though patterns of extrajudicial executions were identified, such as: irregular actions by Aragua law enforcement officers, the justification of public safety and the profile of the victims, confrontations simulated by altering the crime scene or planting evidence, and the situation of impunity that persisted after the events took place. For these reasons, the Court considers that the State incurred in a violation of due diligence in the investigation. 111. Lastly, regarding the representatives’ allegation that the Public Prosecution Service failed to file an appeal against the judgment of the Second Trial Court of September 4, 2014, that acquitted the accused for the second time, they indicated that that were unable to access the judgment owing to the impossibility of obtaining copies of the case file in the domestic sphere, and this has not been contested by the State. This Court considers that, in this case, it is unclear whether the Public Prosecution Service was legally obliged to appeal the acquittal and the representatives failed to explain how this constituted an international obligation under the American Convention. B.2. The reasonable time for the investigation and criminal proceedings 112. Article 8(1) of the Convention requires that events investigated during criminal proceedings be decided within a reasonable time because, in certain cases, a prolonged delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees.138 Similarly, this Court’s case law has considered four elements to determine whether the judicial guarantee of a reasonable time has been respected, namely: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. Also, based on these criteria, the State must provide the reasons why it has required the time that has passed to conclude the case.139 On this basis, the Court will analyze whether the State complied with a reasonable time in the investigations and proceedings relating to the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez and, to this end, it will examine each of the four above-mentioned elements. a) The complexity of the case 113. Regarding this first element, the Court has taken different criteria into account to determine the complexity of a matter, including: (i) the complexity of the evidence; 140 (ii) the Cf. Decision of Contingent Chamber No. 66 of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of December 14, 2011 (evidence file, folios 172 to 184). 137 Cf. Case of Hilaire Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 165. 138 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, para. 155. 139 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166 140 -34-