33 investigation must be conducted on an ex officio basis, without delay, and in a serious, impartial and effective fashion. In any case, every state authority, public official, or private citizen who becomes aware 166 of acts intended to forcibly disappear persons is required report them immediately. 130. Regarding the guarantee of promptness, the Court has ruled that three elements must be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not a delay is reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter, 167 (b) the judicial activity of the interested party, and (c) the behavior of the judicial authorities. In more recent cases, the Court has included a fourth element: the effects that a delay in the proceedings could 168 have on the victim’s legal situation. 131. Therefore, the task is to analyze, in light of the standards listed in the previous paragraphs, whether the Peruvian State has pursued the criminal investigations with due diligence and within a reasonable time, and whether they have been an effective resource for ensuring the victim’s right of access to justice. 132. Although forced disappearance cases demand the immediate action of the prosecution service and the legal system, ordering the steps necessary to determine the whereabouts of the victim or 169 the place where he or she is being held, the State has not spoken of any kind of specific undertakings in that regard, and neither does the case file before the IACHR contain any indication thereof. Thus, Mr. Porfirio Osorio, who appeared as the injured party in all the domestic proceedings, made applications to each instance for on-site inspections to be conducted at the locations where the victim was held in custody. In response, both the Provincial Prosecutor, on September 23, 1991, and the Committal Judge of Cajatambo, on October 15, 1991, agreed to an on-site inspection, provided that the complainant cover the transportation expenses of the authorities involved. The copies of criminal proceedings No. 24-91 indicate that Mr. Porfirio Osorio did in fact provide the means of transportation that the authorities requested, but that even so, the on-site inspection was not carried out because the officials of the Cajatambo Court were on strike. On this point, the IACHR holds that it is unreasonable to impose on the next-of-kin of a victim in a criminal trial – particularly, as in the one at hand, in a forced disappearance case – any expenses related to clearing up the facts. On the contrary: it was the duty of the Cajatambo judicial authorities to act on an ex officio, timely basis to preserve the evidence needed to pursue the proceedings. 133. The IACHR notes that the prosecutors and judicial authorities who dealt with the proceedings as case file No. 24-91 failed to perform basis formalities, such as taking statements from all the witnesses who saw Jeremías Osorio’s arrest. This was in spite of the fact that the complainant had requested the binding notification of the person who was detained along with the victim, Gudmer Tulio Zárate Osorio, and of other local residents who accompanied the victim during his transfer from the community of Nunumia to the Cajatambo Countersubversive Base. Most of these people were only called on to give statements when the investigation was reopened before the Specialized Prosecutor of Lima in September 2004 – in other words, more than thirteen years after the victim’s forced disappearance. Because of these omissions by the State’s authorities and the passage of several years without the pursuit of formalities of vital importance to the criminal proceedings, the likelihood of discovering the truth about what happened and of revealing Jeremías Osorio’s whereabouts were substantially undermined, to the detriment of his next-of-kin. 166 I/A Court H. R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 65; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 23, 2009, Series C No. 209, para. 143. 167 I/A Court H. R., Case of Escué Zapata, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 165, para. 72; and Case of La Cantuta, Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C No. 162, paragraph 102. 168 I/A Court H. R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C No. 192. 169 para. 134. I/A Court H. R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202,