77 there was no substantive investigative action between July 21, 2003, and May 19, 2004, between September 2004 and June 2005, between February 2007 and July 2009, and between that month and December 2010. Also, the Court has not received any information on investigation activities during 2013. In this case, it is clear that, since investigating is an obligation ex officio that must be complied with by the State authorities, the inactivity during the said periods is a result of their conduct. Consequently, the Court considers that it is not necessary to analyze the above-mentioned criteria, because it is clear that the time that elapsed can be attributed to the State’s conduct, and surpasses excessively the duration that could be considered reasonable for the State to investigate the events of this case. Therefore, the more than 12 years that the investigation has lasted exceeds what is reasonable,327 especially considering that, at the present time, the case is still at the preparatory or investigation stage.328 This absence of investigation during such a long period of time constitutes a flagrant denial of justice and a violation of the victims’ right of access to justice. 220. This is revealed because, owing to the time that has passed – more than 12 years – the Mixco Court of First Instance asked the Public Prosecution Service for information on the status of the investigation so as to hold a hearing to end the investigation in order to bring charges or request that the case go to trial.329 In response to this, on October 21, 2009, the Public Prosecution Service stated that it had “asked [the Court] to leave the case at the stage [of the investigation] in which it was,” because it was being processed before the Inter-American Court, and both the Presidential Human Rights Commission (COPREDEH) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) were involved, and that, at that time, “[it was] one of the leading cases of unpunished femicide in Guatemala.” As can be observed, the reasons indicated by the Public Prosecution Service are unrelated to issues of an investigative nature. In response to another request from the said judge, in 2012, the Public Prosecution Service requested that the proceedings be kept open because “the investigation was ongoing” (supra footnote 207). The body of evidence reveals that, to date, the investigation has not identified any of those responsible and no investigative strategy is being followed based on the evidence and indications that have been obtained and that would allow the case to be resolved. Although this Court has established that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results,330 this does not mean that the investigation can be undertaken as “a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.”331 In this regard, the Court has established that “every action of the State during the investigative procedures, as well as the investigation as a whole, must have a specific objective, the establishment of the truth and investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible for the facts.”332 327 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156. In this case, the Court determined that Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes, as one of the elements of due process, that the courts must decide cases submitted to them within a reasonable time. 328 Although the State argued that it had carried out numerous different investigation procedures, it is also aware that the investigation should be conducted within specific time limits. In this regard, it affirmed that, “[o]wing to the time that had elapsed, and since the laws of Guatemala establish guidelines and time frames within which an investigation may and should remain open, the Mixco Prosecutor asked for the collaboration with this case of full-time investigators in order to make progress, within the State’s possibilities, in the identification of the perpetrator of María Isabel’s death.” Request issued by the Deputy District Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5, supra. 329 Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes “[w]hen the Public Prosecution Service considers that the investigation has provided firm grounds to try the accused, it shall submit a written request to the judge for a decision to go to trial. Charges shall be brought on opening the trial stage.” Cf. Congress of the Republic of Guatemala. Code of Criminal Procedure. Decree 51-92 and its amendments, supra. 330 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibu, supra, para. 39. 331 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 98. 332 Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres, supra, para. 192.