48. As regards the unwarranted delay, the Commission evaluates the circumstances and conducts a case-by-case analysis to determine whether improper delay has occurred. As a general rule, the Commission determines that “a criminal investigation must be conducted promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims and preserve the evidence.”7 In order to establish whether an investigation has been conducted “promptly,” the Commission considers a series of factors, such as the time which has lapsed since the crime was committed, whether the investigation has gone through the preliminary stage, what measures have been adopted by the authorities, and the complexity of the case.8 49. he Commission observes that the petitioners presented two arguments regarding the existence of unwarranted delay: i) that the conduct and conclusion of the oral and public trial have been postponed unjustifiably; and ii) that the authorities in charge of conducting the investigation rushed the case to trial without gathering the necessary evidence, with the intent to ensure impunity, and that there has been a delay in conducting these evidence-gathering procedures. 50. From the information provided by the petitioners, it is seen that on the very day that the events occurred, January 6, 2003, an investigation was launched into the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto, and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez. Furthermore, within six months, some investigative steps were taken which resulted in charges being filed in June of 2003 by the Ninth Prosecutor’s Office. Seven CSOPA officers were charged with intentional homicide and improper use of a firearm. As is seen from the available information, the oral and public trial has been delayed since that date as a result of judges being disqualified. To date there is no final decision attributing criminal liability to the perpetrators of the crimes. The State reported that, on April 25, 200, the officers accused had been acquitted; that, on July 19 2007, the Attorney General’s Office had appealed; and that that appeal hearing had been postponed and had not yet been resolved. 51. The Commission notes that, according to the relevant provisions of Venezuela's Organic Code of Criminal Procedures, once an appeal has been lodged, the interested parties have 5 days in which to reply to the appeal 9, after which the respective court or tribunal must remit the file to the Court of Appeals for its ruling 10. That judicial organ has 10 days in which to pronounce on the admissibility of the appeal and must immediately proceed to convene a hearing, which shall take place within no more than 10 days of the writ admitting the appeal. 11 The final ruling on the appeal must be pronounced at the end of the hearing or, in a complex case, within 10 days afterwards. 12 52. The appeal was lodged on July 19, 2007, which means that, today, the maximum time allowed for a decision to be made has been exceeded by a wide margin, without the State having presented arguments to justify that delay. The Commission considers that the Venezuelan State failed to meet the burden of proof which it bears when the petitioner alleges any exception to the rule established in 7 IACHR Report Nº 16/02, Servellón García (Honduras), Petition 12.331, Admissibility, para. 31 (February 27, 2002). 8 IACHR, Report Nº 130/99, Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico), Petition 11.740, paras. 30-32. 9 Article 453. 10 Article 454 11 Article 455. 12 Article 456. 10