that these complaints were not responded to in a timely or effective manner. This is despite laws that specifically establish penalties for failure to adhere to the provisions of the law on violence against women in force at that time. 254. Given that this case also takes place in the context of impunity in cases of violence against women in Venezuela, the fact that no serious and effective processes were launched in response to alleged irregularities at the hands of a number of State agents ranging from refusal to accept complaints to the omissions already described in this report contributes to perpetuating and aggravating the aforementioned context of impunity, sending a message that violence against women is tolerated.336 Effectively, the analysis of the situation of violence against women performed more recently by international bodies reveals exactly this situation 255. Finally, the Commission finds that the threats and harassment that Linda Loaiza López and her relatives reported receiving during the judicial process were also not investigated. Specifically, the threats that Ana Secilia López reported she and her father received from Luis Carrera Almoina were not investigated. Complaints of alleged retaliation and threats aimed at some of the judicial officials who participated in the process were also not resolved. The IACHR hence finds that the State, having failed to investigate reports of a variety of obstructive actions throughout the process, failed to comply with its duty to provide the necessary guarantees to prevent the creation of a climate of intimidation during the process.337 2.2.2. On the duty to investigate within a reasonable period of time 256. The IACHR recalls that the analysis of the reasonable period of time as part of the right to judicial guarantees must be measured on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to the relevant standards applied to a specific situation. Those elements are: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the conduct of the authorities, and c) the procedural activity of the interested party.338The Inter-American Court has also established that the following must be taken into account: “the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account; bearing in mind, among other elements the matter in dispute.”339In this sense, the reasonableness of judicial processes has to do with the right to access to justice, which “means that the resolution of the controversy should take place within a reasonable period of time.” That is, evaluation of the time period must be conducted in conjunction with “the total duration of the proceedings until a final judgment is handed down.”340 257. In that sense, the Commission takes into account that the criminal investigation was launched on July 19, 2001, the same day on which Linda Loaiza López was rescued, and the judicial process concluded definitively—after a single repetition of its initial phase—on May 11, 2007, with the decision of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which dismissed the cassation writ filed by Linda Loaiza López’s attorney. 336 Likewise, see: Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 377. 337 See: Inter-American Court, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 106; Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 173. 338 Inter-American Court, Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; and Inter-American Court, Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 105. 339 Inter-American Court, Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 155. 340 Inter-American Court, Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 154.