149. In accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the State has the duty to investigate human rights violations and punish those responsible, which also includes the prosecution and punishment of those who cover up the facts or facilitate the impunity of their perpetrators. In this sense, the Inter-American Court has assured that “public officials and individuals who unduly obstruct, divert, or delay investigations aimed at clarifying the truth of the facts, must be punished, applying in this regard, with the utmost rigor, the provisions of the internal legislation”120. 150. The Commission highlights that the duty of due diligence in investigations of serious human rights violations implies that States have “the obligation to guarantee the right of the victims or their next of kin to participate in all stages of the proceedings, so that they can make proposals, receive information, provide evidence, formulate allegations and, in short, assert their rights” 121, with a view to ensuring the right of access to justice, clarifying the truth and awarding the reparation measures that the case merits. The Commission notes that the right of the victims to participate in the investigations is closely linked to the possibility for them and their representatives to be able to access the judicial file in a timely manner 122. 151. The Commission recalls that the State has the obligation to “effectively determine the facts under investigation and, where appropriate, the corresponding criminal responsibilities in a reasonable time, therefore, in view of the need to guarantee the rights of the affected persons, a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial”123. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has indicated that “the right of access to justice does not end with the internal proceedings, but rather it must ensure, in a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victim or their next of kin to have everything necessary done to find out the truth of what happened and to punish those who may be responsible”124. 152. Finally, the Commission emphasizes that the judicial process must be concluded within a reasonable period of time in order not to hinder the right of the victims to know the truth and to punish those responsible for the violations125. The organs of the inter-American system have taken into consideration three criteria to determine whether there is a violation of the guarantee of reasonable time, namely: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and c) the procedural activity of the interested party 126 . Likewise, the Inter-American Court has established that the processing period of the process must be evaluated based on its total duration, that is, from the first procedural act until the definitive judgment is issued127. 153. In addition to the three criteria mentioned, it is necessary to assess the rights at stake and the impact generated by the duration of the procedure on the individual situation of the person involved. On this point, the Inter-American Court has specified that “the impact generated by the duration of the procedure on the legal situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account, considering, among other elements, the subject I/A Court H.R., Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 119; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 257. 121 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 251. See also: IACHR. Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA / Ser.L / V / II.152 Doc. 2. August 13, 2014 Original: Spanish. Para. 80. 122 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 252. 123 I/A Court H.R., Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 145. 124 I/A Court H.R., Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 66. 125 I/A Court H.R., Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para.65. 126 IACHR. Merits Report No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11.506), December 27, 2002, para. 76. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 132; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 105. 127 I/A Court H.R., Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 200. 120 30