Navy.86 A.1.4. Reasonable time 93. The Commission emphasized that in order to justify the complexity of the process, the State must provide specific information that directly links the elements of complexity invoked with the delays in the proceedings, which has not occurred in the instant case. Regarding the appeals filed by the defense of the alleged victim, the Commission argued that the filing of ordinary remedies to challenge possible violations of due process cannot be considered as a factor for the analysis of reasonable time. In addition, there are no elements in the file to indicate that Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s defense counsel obstructed the process by filing various appeals. It added that the conduct of the authorities reveals prolonged, unjustified delays during the process and, in particular, affects the legal situation of the human rights defender and discourages the exercise of that right. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considered that the seven years and two months that elapsed from the beginning of the investigation until the ratification of the judgment constituted an unreasonable period of time. 94. With respect to the actions of the judicial authorities, the State argued that they proceeded in an ex officio manner due to the type of crime investigated, as reflected in the facts, receiving testimonies, gathering documentary and material evidence. Moreover, it pointed out that measures such as the pretrial detention of the defendants were ordered, that is to say, they carried out their duty to investigate with due diligence, observing the basic principles of due process and having regard to the competence and jurisdiction of the military judges and courts. With respect to the standard of reasonable time derived from the conduct of the jurisdictional authorities during the criminal proceedings, it argued that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest any irregular action on the part of the judges who heard the case, since they acted in accordance with constitutional principles applicable to the proceedings and the legal norms in force at the time of the alleged facts. The State also noted that Mr. Grijalva Bueno, through his defense counsel, continually filed various briefs requesting the revocation of orders and other procedural incidents that contributed, to some degree, to prolong the duration of the proceedings. It concluded that the time taken to settle the instant case cannot be considered unreasonable nor can the State be held responsible for the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. A.2 Considerations of the Court 95. Based on the foregoing arguments, the Commission considers that the military criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno violated his rights to judicial guarantees, specifically the right to a defense, the right to examine witnesses, the principle of the presumption of innocence, the duty to state reasons for decisions, the exclusionary rule, the reasonable time limit and judicial protection in terms of access to an effective remedy. Consequently, the Commission requested that the Court declare the State’s responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2) b), 8(2) c), 8(2) f), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Aníbal Vicente Grijalva Bueno. For its part, the State insisted that it did not violate those rights, as alleged by the Commission. It added that in this ruling “there is a written complaint from GR and other documents that prove the statements made by several declarants; authorizations to transport fuel; cash receipts; and the testimonies of [GR]; [RG]; [VR] [,] among others […].” 86 25