furthermore, in that letter they had requested medical care and antiretroviral treatment for people diagnosed with HIV, and this should have been examined by the Constitutional Court. Specifically, that Court should have analyzed whether the measure taken by the President was effective to ensure the rights at stake. 179. Based on the above, the Court recalls that the requirement that the reasons should be provided for any decision is not the same as there being an analysis of the merits of the matter, an examination that is not essential to determine the effectiveness of the remedy.216 However, the reasoning behind a ruling should allow the facts, grounds and laws on which the authority based itself to take its decision to be known clearly and expressly, in order to rule out any indication of arbitrariness; a situation that did not occur in this case. The European Court has considered that a remedy “is effective if there had been a sufficient judicial review, even when the jurisdiction [of the judicial organ] over the facts was limited, […if ] it could have annulled the decision on a number of grounds, including if the decision had been reached on the basis of a misconception of fact or law.”217 B.2. Reasonable time 180. The Commission and the representatives argued that the State had violated the reasonable time established in Article 8(1). In this regard, the Court has reiterated that the reasonable time should be examined in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the proceedings, from the first procedural act up until the final judgment is handed down. 218 Thus, it has considered four elements in order to analyze whether the guarantee of a reasonable times has been respected; namely: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. The Court recalls that it is incumbent on the State to justify, on the basis of these criteria, the reason why it has required the time that has elapsed to process cases and, in the absence of such justification, the Court has broad powers to reach its own conclusions in this regard. 219 181. In this case, the Court notes that the application for amparo was filed on July 26, 2002, and the proceedings concluded with the decision on inadmissibility on January 29, 2003, so that the duration of the proceedings was approximately six months. Accordingly, the Court will determine whether this length of time was reasonable pursuant to the criteria established in its case law. 182. The Court has taken into account different criteria to determine the complexity of a proceeding. These include the complexity of the evidence, the plurality of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time elapsed since the violation, the characteristics of Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 94, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 171. 216 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 210, and ECHR, Case of Sigma Radio Television Ltd. v. Cyprus, No. 32181/04 and 35122/05. Judgment of July 21, 2016, para. 159. 217 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 268. 218 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 Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 422. 219 63