diversity of procedural subjects141 or the number of victims;142 (iii) the time that has elapsed since the State became aware of the alleged offense; 143 (iv) the characteristics of the remedy under domestic law,144 and (v) the context in which the facts occurred.145 114. In this case, the Court notes that: (a) the events that occurred relate to three victims who were fully identified from the outset; (b) the facts could allegedly be attributed to a group of police officers, also identified from the outset, and (c) from the start, the authorities had access to all the elements of interest for an appropriate criminal investigation. Added to this, the events took place in a context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela, and especially in Aragua state, of which the State was aware. 115. That said, the State argued that this was a complex case because two different incidents were investigated, with several victims and alleged perpetrators, and the alleged perpetrators were police officers. However, none of these elements is directly related to the complexity of the proceedings. Nor is the State’s argument regarding the mixed composition of the courts in the context of a reform of criminal procedure because any delays resulting from the adaption to the new legislation is the responsibility of the State and should not have negative impact on the respect and guarantee of the right to judicial guarantees. 116. Therefore, the Court considers that, in this case, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the investigation of the facts was not complex. b) The procedural activity of the interested party 117. Regarding this second element, the Court must assess whether the interested parties carried out the interventions that were reasonably required at the different procedural stages.146 The State argued that the alleged victims contributed to the duration of the criminal proceedings. However, the Court considers that preliminary absence from a judicial procedure or the fact of filing a recusal against a judge, as the State has alleged, are interventions that could reasonably be required by the interested parties. c) The conduct of the judicial authorities 118. Regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court has understood that, as leaders of the process, they have the obligation to guide and prosecute the judicial proceedings in order not to sacrifice justice and due process to formalities.147 In the instant case, the Court notes that: (a) after the Public Prosecution Service had filed the indictment Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 106, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166. 141 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 156, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, para. 107. Similarly, see Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 152, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 103, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166. 142 Mutatis mutandis, Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 150, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 107. 143 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166. 144 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 156, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166. 145 Cf. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 69, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166. 146 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 211, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 166. 147 -35-