38 2002. Proof of that is the fact that thirteen years after the events that gave rise to the instant case and five years after the restoration of democracy in Peru, the investigation has not gone beyond its preliminary stage. Finally, this Court finds that such excessive delay amounts in itself to a violation of the right to a fair trial,63 for which the State has failed to provide any justification. 86. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Court finds that the State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino, Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. Esmila Liliana Conislla-Cárdenas, Mrs. María Dolores Gómez-Palomino, Mrs. Luzmila Sotelo-Palomino, and Emiliano, Mónica, Mercedes, Rosa and Margarita Palomino-Buitrón and the girl Ana María Gómez-Guevara. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) AND I OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE Arguments by the Commission 87. As regards Article 2 of the American Convention and Article I of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance, the Commission stated that: a) the definition of forced disappearance under Article 320 of the Criminal Code requires that the crime be “duly proven.” Such requirement is foreign to the structure of the definition of a crime; it baffles construction at the time of determining the conduct of the alleged perpetrator at the respective stage of the criminal proceedings ―commencement of investigation proceedings, custody pending trial, indictment― or when assessing the criminal liability at the time of sentencing. It makes it very difficult to determine whether the conduct meets the statutory definition of the crime insofar as the criminal provision requires a certain standard of proof as a condition precedent to the prosecution of crimes that typically leave no trace or evidence of the disappearance. Furthermore, it worsens the situation of the victim’s next of kin, who do not have the charge or duty to investigate the facts themselves and to duly establish the manner in which they occurred, or to identify the perpetrators, in order to set the State judicial system in motion, and b) the description laid out in Article 320 includes only “public officials” as offenders, excluding private individuals who act with the support or acquiescence of the State, such as the paramilitary, the parapolice, or the private justice groups that operate with the complicity of State agents. In order to be consistent with international standards, this Article must be 63 Cf. Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 160; Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, para. 69; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142.