considered as a whole, and the role of the international court is to establish whether the proceedings as a whole were in accordance with international provisions.307 284. The Inter-American Court has considered that in general a judicial proceeding itself does not constitute an unlawful impact on the honor or dignity of the person.308 In this respect, the Commission agrees with the Inter-American Court that given their nature, judicial, administrative, or other proceedings may prove bothersome or inconvenient for those subject to the procedure, which is why they should be accepted as a burden that is part and parcel of belonging to society and living in a state under the rule of law. Nonetheless, the Commission observes that Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes, as one of the elements of due process, that the courts decide the cases submitted for their cognizance in a reasonable time by a competent judge. In this sense, a prolonged delay may itself end up constituting a violation of judicial guarantees.309 The reasonableness of the time should be weighed in relation to the total duration of the criminal proceeding.310 285. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that in the context of the six criminal proceedings in which Ms. Andrade Salmón was a defendant (Gader, Guaglio, Mendieta, Street Lamps, Mallasa and Esin), even though there were official reports that cleared Ms. Andrade of any liability whatsoever, there were several violations of due process, in particular of the guarantee of being tried in a reasonable time, of the presumption of innocence, of the right to defense, and the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court. 286. The petitioners argue that on maintaining the aforementioned proceedings in the investigative stage for many years, when under Bolivian law they should not last more than 20 days; and if prolonged should not last, in all, more than 120 days, when this was the maximum time allowed for the duration of the entire proceeding pursuant to Articles 166 to 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and on denying the petitions for extinction of the criminal action filed by Ms. Andrade, the State has violated the rights of Ms. Andrade to due process, guaranteed in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. The petitioners argue that the six proceedings brought against Ms. Andrade are so complex as to justify the time elapsed since they were initiated. 287. The State, for its part, indicated that Ms. Andrade is facing six criminal proceedings related to her activity as council member and mayor of the municipality of La Paz during the period from 1996 to 2000. It indicated that each proceeding has its origins in different facts related to purported handling of the economic resources of the Bolivian people, and indicated that in the instant case there were no violations of the human rights of Ms. Andrade, since she was tried in keeping with the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. The State alleged that due to the large number of persons tried along with Ms. Andrade in these six proceedings, there were delays since the existence of a plurality of persons accused implied presenting any number of objections and motions provided for in the domestic legal system, which interrupted the principal litigation. It indicated that the motions presented by the accused were generally procedural in 307 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 142, I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 133; I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 200; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120. 308 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 174. 309 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 310 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168.