excessive delays at different procedural stages, including but not limited to: (i) almost two years from the date of recognition of the Court's jurisdiction (December of 1998), through the presentation of the last document with final arguments, to the “pronúncia” judgment (August of 2000); (ii) eight months from the “pronúncia” judgment (August of 2000) to the notification thereof to the defendant M.C.N. (May of 2001); (iii) over nine months from the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office to terminate the liability of the defendant J.P.N. due to his death (November 23, 1999) to the judge's order granting that request (August 31, 2000); (iv) almost four years, from 2002 to 2006, in which the proceedings were stalled due to M.C.N.’s contempt of court; and (v) a year and four months from the sending of the case to the Agrarian Court (February 20, 2004) to its return to the Criminal Court (July 28, 2005). 110. Regarding the procedural activity of the victims, the Court confirms that no dilatory or obstructive conduct on the part of the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta has been observed; on the contrary, his brother Rafael Sales Pimenta made himself available as a “prosecutorial assistant” whenever possible, and his actions served only to further the trial’s progress. 188 111. Lastly, regarding the effects on the legal situation of those involved in the proceedings, the Court has established that, if the passage of time has a significant impact on the legal situation of the individual, the proceedings must advance with greater diligence so that the case may be decided as soon as possible. 189 The Court observes that as this case concerns a human rights defender, especially an attorney for rural workers in a context of violence and impunity, judicial authorities should have carried out the procedural steps more quickly and diligently, as was necessary in order to investigate and determine what had really happened. This is important because it was highly likely that Gabriel Sales Pimenta had been murdered because of his work defending human rights, which could be interpreted as a direct attack to send a message to all human rights defenders. 112. With respect to the alleged violations in the context of the action for compensation against the state of Pará initiated by the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, that action was filed by his mother in 2007, after the final decision in the criminal trial. However, it took almost 14 years to process that action, and the decision was that it was inadmissible. Here as well, the excessive delay was caused by the negligence of the judicial authorities. For example, four years passed between the filing of the action and the judgment of first instance (October 5, 2011), and almost ten more years passed between that judgment and the final ruling issued by the Superior Court of Justice. 113. Therefore, taking into consideration all of the above, and because almost 24 years passed between the events of this case and the decision that ended the criminal trial, more than seven years passed between the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction and that final decision in the criminal trial, and the civil proceedings lasted almost 14 years, the Court concludes that Brazil violated the right to a reasonable timeframe in its investigation and in its conduct of the criminal trial for the murder of human rights defender Gabriel Sales Pimenta. b.3 Right to the truth 114. This Court has held that “everyone, including the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth [about those violations],” which means that they “should be informed of everything that happened regarding such violations.” 190 The right to the truth is broadly related to the right that the State take actions aimed at “the clarification of the facts of 188 Cf. Written version of Rui Carlo Dissenha’s expert opinion, supra (evidence file, folio 6642). Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 135. 189 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 176. Also, Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 134. 190 32