-27related to determining the judge, bearing in mind that for approximately one year the case was heard by two different jurisdictions (ordinary and military); iii) on various occasions, the prosecutor requested extensions for pursuing different procedures, which were granted except on one occasion; iv) the closing of the case due to the application of the amnesty law, the proceedings lasted approximately seven years; v) the arrest of the accused, and vi) the length of time to pay the reparations. The Court shall now refer to each of these elements in the order established above. i. The opening of the criminal committal proceedings 107. The Court notes that the record shows that the Office of the General Prosecutor received the complaint of the CNDDHH on August 12, 1994 and that, on November 2, 1994, the Provincial Prosecutor filed a criminal charge before the 27th Criminal Court of Lima against the accused. On November 25, that court opened committal proceedings. The record also shows that there was a delay of more than three months in opening the criminal committal proceedings that would not, per se, be considered a lack of a reasonable time. In addition, the evidence indicates that there were certain procedures discharged during this period. ii. The competent judge and the military jurisdiction 108. On August 10, 1994, a complaint on the incident was filed to the President of the War Council and, on August 12, 1994, the Office of the General Prosecutor received the complaint of the CNDDHH (supra para. 39). On August 31, 1994, the War Council opened criminal proceedings and ordered that the dispute on jurisdiction be discussed with the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. On November 25, 1994, the Criminal Court opened criminal proceedings and on the 24th of the month, the Military Court asked the Criminal Court to recuse itself from hearing the case (supra para. 43). On June 20, 1995, the Supreme Council of Military Justice ordered, inter alia, the definitive closing of the case (supra para. 52). On September 11, 1995, the Criminal Court also ordered the definitive closing of its case by applying the amnesty law and, approximately three months after the case had been closed, the same court denied the request of recusal of the Military Court on the grounds that it was a question of homicide (supra paras. 44 and 59). 109. The Court notes that the Commission and the representatives alleged a violation of the right to a natural or competent judge. The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine that allegation since the proceedings against the perpetrator of the incident in the military jurisdiction lasted less than a year and that at the reopening of the case he was only tried by the ordinary jurisdiction, which convicted him. Therefore, the only issue to analyze is the impact on the reasonable time of the proceedings caused by the fact that, for a certain period, the case was being heard under both the military and the ordinary jurisdictions.119 110. The Court holds that the evidence does not show that the fact that the accused, during a period of less than a year, was simultaneously investigated by the military and the ordinary jurisdiction, contributed to the delay of the proceedings. It also notes that certain procedures were advanced in both jurisdictions, but that this did not obstruct either of the proceedings. In addition, the military jurisdiction never reopened the file after its closing due to the application of the amnesty law and, thus, the co-existence of the case in two jurisdictions was not a factor during the rest of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court does not consider that the hearing of the case by the military jurisdiction for a certain period would have resulted Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, paras. 158 and 159. 119