investigations of the disappearance of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes. 270. All of the above matters taken as a whole make it possible to conclude that the State has not investigated the facts of the instant case with due diligence, in violation of the rights established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, as well as their next of kin as set out in paragraphs 59 to 61 of this report. 3. Reasonable time 271. Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes as one of the criteria for due process that the courts must decide on cases submitted to them within a reasonable According to the terms of Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Commission shall take into consideration, in the light of the concrete circumstances of the case, those elements that bodies of the Inter-American System have taken into account, namely: i) the complexity of the case; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; and iii) the conduct of judicial authorities; and iv) the impact arising from the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. 300 The Inter-American Court has established that a long delay may per se constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial,301 and that it is therefore incumbent on the State to explain and to prove that more than reasonable time has been required to render a final judgment in a specific case.302 272. A period of five years and 10 months has elapsed from the time the next of kin informed the State of the facts of the case on the day following the disappearance until the present time. 273. As concerns the first factor, the case may, in principle, be considered complex. The Commission recalls that even in cases that can be viewed as complex because of their very nature, the State in question must provide specific arguments on why the complexity has concretely affected the investigations. The Commission considers that this was not done in the instant case. It is clear from a review of the Commission’s files that complexity was not the reason why only one possible perpetrator has been identified to date and this only very recently; nor have the facts been clarified or the corresponding punishments imposed. On the contrary, as described in the preceding section, the case has been considered by multiple authorities who for years have passed on responsibility for it, and much of the information that could have led to the design and implementation of lines of investigation that implicated State agents emerged from the outset without being given adequate follow-up. 274. As concerns the actions of the State authorities, the Commission reiterates the numerous failures described in the section on due diligence. Furthermore, the Commission observes that there were several periods of inactivity, which the State has not justified specifically. For example, in 2012, measures were taken between January 3 and February 9, and there is no information about whether any further activity took place during the rest of the year. The Commission also stresses on this point that, in the context of military criminal justice, the authorities obstructed the taking of evidence on the army’s possible responsibility for the facts. For its part, even though in a case like this one, the State is ultimately responsible for the investigation, the Commission notes that the next of kin and witnesses were actively involved in giving statements in the judicial investigations. Likewise, their attorneys have followed up on the investigation and given it impetus. 300 IACHR, Report No. 111/10, Case 12.539, Merits, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family, Argentina, October 21, 2010, para. 100. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 164. 301 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 302 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142.