36 procedural steps of which the Commission is aware, consisting of the receipt of certain evidence, were ordered in April 2009. 146 One of these - the receipt of Mr. Vélez's attorney's testimony in Colombia - was undertaken on two occasions, on June 9, 2009, and on November 26, 2009, and on both occasions the testimony referred to basic issues such as the circumstances of the acts of aggression committed on August 29, 1996, the attempted kidnapping, and Mr. Vélez and his family's leaving the country. 147 158. The Commission observes that more that 13 years have elapsed since these acts occurred without the investigation identifying, trying or punishing anyone responsible. At the same time, the Commission repeats that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means or behavior and is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. 148 To examine whether the investigation has respected the principle of a reasonable time, it is necessary to analyze, in essence, the complexity of the matter, the procedural activities carried out by the interested party and the conduct of the judicial authorities. 149 159. Unfortunately, the information provided by the State and, in particular, the fact that a copy of the criminal case file requested by the Commission has not been supplied, 150 makes it impossible for the IACHR to conduct an adequate analysis in this regard. Since more than a decade has passed without the investigation producing any results, it is a matter in principle for the State to show that its judicial authorities have acted diligently, 151 also remembering that the State's refusal to send certain documents cannot have a prejudicial result for the victims, but only to itself.152 In this case, the paucity of information supplied by the State as well as the information that suggests the investigation remains in a preliminary phase, 153 do not permit a conclusion other than that the criminal investigation into the harassment against Mr. Vélez and his family and the attempted kidnapping of October 6, 1997 was not undertaken in a diligent manner and within a reasonable time. The Commission concludes therefore that the State of Colombia has violated Articles 8.1 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, to the prejudice of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles, Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. 146 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, pp. 47-49. 147 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 49. Petitioners’ Brief received on September 8, 2010, Annex 15 a), Prosecutor General of the Nation, Statement of Raúl Hernández Rodríguez, June 9, 2009; Annex 15 b), Prosecutor General of the Nation's Office, Statement of Raúl Hernández Rodríguez to the Judicial Police, November 26, 2009. 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para.177. 149 I/A Court H.R., Case of Escué Zapata v Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para.102. In some cases the Court has also analyzed the effect on the judicial situation on the person involved in the process. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para.156. 150 Letter of the IACHR to the State of Colombia, Case 12.658, April 30, 2010. 151 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para.156. 152 153 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (Cotton Field) . Mexico, Decision of 19 January 2009, para. 59. See Petitioners’ Brief received on September 8, 2010, Annex 13, National Public Prosecutor's Office, 13th Dispatch 43078, Act 160 F.13, February 13, 2009, indicating that the amplification of the complaint "is aimed at achieving that Luis Gonzalo Velez Restrepo inform which authority received his complaint." See also Petitioners’ Brief received on September 8, 2010, Annex 15 b), Procurator General of the Nation's Office, Statement of Raúl Hernández Rodríguez to the Judicial Police, November 26, 2009, asking the witness "if his protégée wished to continue with the investigation of his complaints in view of the fact that the original file at the 67 Military Court had been lost and that to this date there was no progress in the clarification of the facts".