74. Similarly and of particular relevance to the instant case, the Inter-American Court has written the following: When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the human rights embodied in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, a substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments or administrative decisions were issued at the national level or whether certain provisions of domestic law were applied with regard to the violations that are alleged to have been committed to the detriment of the alleged victims of the facts, but whether the domestic proceedings ensured genuine access to justice, in keeping with the standards established in the American Convention, to determine the rights that were in dispute.114 75. Based on the foregoing, the Commission notes that its analysis in this matter will focus on determining whether or not administrative and judicial proceedings brought by the victims respected the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, without getting into whether or not, under domestic law, they were correct in their claims as to uncollected wages and benefits from the time of her deprivation of liberty in the case of Mrs. Perrone, and, in the case of Mr. Preckel, of his deprivation of liberty and exile. 76. In particular, the Commission will rule on the guarantee of a reasonable period of time as well as the duty to provide a basis in law and fact for decisions, both of which are protected under Article 8.1 of the Convention. Based on the decisions, the Commission will examine whether or not the remedies pursued in domestic courts were effective to settle the claims of the alleged victims, as provided for under Article 25 of the Convention. 1. Guarantee of a reasonable period of time 77. Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes as one element of due process that courts must decide the cases submitted to them within a reasonable period of time. Thus, a protracted delay can even constitute, in and of itself, a violation of fair trial guarantees.115 78. In the instant case, the Commission finds it appropriate to look at the time elapsed from the date the administrative claim was filed until the final judicial decision, bearing in mind that an administrative claim is a prior step to be able to resort to the courts. As such, the total length of the administrative and judicial proceedings brought by Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel was twelve and a half years. The IACHR takes note that the State offered no justification whatsoever for this delay. Under the provisions of Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Commission must take into consideration, in light of the particular circumstances of the case and given the failure to provide any justification for the delay, the four elements listed hereunder in order to examine whether or not the period of time was reasonable, which are: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and iv) the adverse effect on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.116 79. In regard to complexity, the IACHR notes that the matter was not complex. The Commission underscores that both the petitioners and the State acknowledged that neither of the two proceedings entailed extensive investigative steps, inasmuch as the dispute was essentially about the law and the specific issue to be settled was whether or not it was legal to pay lost wages to Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel. 114 IA Court of HR. Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 106. 115 IA Court of HR. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; and the Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 116 IA Court of HR. Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 164. 16