and noted that where defense counsel attempted to address the matter, it was without effect. Moreover, the review by the Privy Council highlighted the failure of the prosecution to fully consider the exculpatory evidence within the expert evidence and build a case inclusive of it. Specifically, it noted that “a report from a ballistics expert […] strongly suggest[ed] that the .44 revolver had not after all been used in the attack.” Also, one eyewitness that testified at the hearing before the Privy Council noted that no motive was ever suggested by the prosecution for the killing and that Shawn, the most important prosecution witness, lied in one part of his evidence at trial. 68. The case under analysis raises therefore one question that is directly related to the principle of presumption of innocence, which involves the evidence on which Messrs. Dial and Dottin’s conviction was based. As the Privy Council has noted, the prosecution built the State’s case on inconsistent evidence, without consideration of exculpatory evidence from the ballistics evidence. In cases involving the death penalty, the State has an enhanced obligation to guarantee that no evidence favorable to the accused is withheld, as this could change the outcome of the trial and give rise to an arbitrary deprivation of life.83 Though the information was not in the strictest sense withheld, the result is similar since the existence of exculpatory evidence was not considered. 69. Based upon the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the lack of a serious analysis of the inconsistencies in the evidence constitutes a violation of the right of Messrs. Dial and Dottin to due process, particularly, regarding the right to provide a reasoned judgment and the principle of presumption of innocence established in Articles 8.1 and 8.2 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument. The Commission also concludes that the lack of an effective remedy with regard to the inconsistencies in the evidence, constitute a violation also of the right established in Article 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 2. Right to be tried without undue delay84 70. According to the standards developed by the Inter-American human rights system, a remedy must be effective, i.e., it must provide results or responses consistent with the objectives that it was intended to serve, which is to avoid the consolidation of an unjust situation. Also, the right of access to justice requires that the facts investigated in criminal proceedings be resolved within a reasonable period of time, since a prolonged delay may, in certain cases, constitute in itself a violation of judicial guarantees.85 71. The IACHR has also considered that the burden of proof ought to be on the State to justify the delay in light of the following elements: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activity of the interested party; c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and d) the impact of the legal situation on the person involved in the proceedings.86 72. In the case of Michael Edwards et al., the Commission found that The Bahamas had violated the right of Messrs. Schroeter and Bowleg to be tried without undue delay pursuant to Article XXV of the Declaration, given they were not brought to trial until approximately 26 months after they were arrested. 87 Relying on jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court, the Commission indicated that: 88 IACHR. Report 53/13, Case 12.864, Ivan Teleguz, United States. July 15, 2013, para 98. 7(5) of the American Convention provides: “Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.” 85 IACHR, Report No. 24/17, Case 12.254. Merits. Victor Saldaño. United States. March 18, 2017, para. 205. 86 IACHR. Application of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago. May 25, 1999, p. 45; and IACHR, Report No. 130/17, Case 13.044. Merits. Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego. Colombia. October 25, 2017, para. 138. 87 IACHR, Report No 48/01 Case 12.067, Michael Edwards, Case 12.068, Omar Hall, Case 12.086, Brian Schroeter & Jeronimo Bowleg, The Bahamas, April 4, 2001. 88 IACHR, Report No 48/01 Case 12.067, Michael Edwards, Case 12.068, Omar Hall, Case 12.086, Brian Schroeter & Jeronimo Bowleg, The Bahamas, April 4, 2001, para. 218. 83 84 Article 15