146. Finally, with respect to the fourth element, which refers to the effect of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the persons involved, the Court considers, as it has done previously, that it is not necessary to analyze this point in the instant case in order to determine the reasonableness of the time taken in these investigations.125 B. Conclusion 147. For all the foregoing reasons, in relation to the military criminal proceedings against Mr. Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno, the Court concludes that the right to examine witnesses and to exercise control over the content of their statements was violated. Furthermore, the State violated the principle of presumption of innocence of Mr. Grijalva Bueno, and failed to provide a reasoned justification for the judicial ruling. The ruling lacks reasoning on factual or legal aspects, which affected his right to obtain a properly reasoned decision. Likewise, the State acknowledged that there were various irregularities in the preparation of the SERINT reports and the report of the commission of the General Inspectorate of the Navy, which formed part of the body of evidence assessed by the military judge who, when issuing his conviction, considered unlawful evidence obtained under torture and coercion. All of the above constitutes a violation of due process and of Mr. Grijalva’s essential judicial guarantees related to the right to a defense, presumption of innocence, procedural equality and the right to a fair trial. Finally, the State did not act with due diligence and there was a prolonged delay in the military criminal proceedings. 148. Therefore, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno. In view of all the aforesaid violations of judicial guarantees, this Court concludes that the military criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva were arbitrary and absolutely contrary to the Convention. VIII.2 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION126 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 149. The Commission considered that the statements made by Mr. Grijalva to his institution and to the media are among the activities that may be undertaken by human rights defenders. The Commission noted that Mr. Grijalva’s dismissal and the military criminal proceedings against him “constituted acts of retaliation,” since both were initiated after Mr. Grijalva reported the involvement of military personnel in serious human rights violations. In addition, the Commission argued that the duration of the criminal proceedings of more than seven years was not reasonable, which is particularly relevant to the situation of a human rights defender, owing to the effect that the period of time has on his or her legal situation. The Commission concluded that the statements made by Mr. Grijalva correspond to the type of activities that may be undertaken by a human rights defender outside of his role as a member of the Navy. Consequently, it Cf. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 138, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 195. 126 Article 13 of the American Convention. 125 38