complexity of the matter; 195 (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; 196 (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; 197 and the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim. 198 The Court recalls that it is the State’s responsibility to justify, based on these criteria, why it required the time that passed to process the case and that if it fails to do so, the Court has broad powers to form its own opinion in this regard. 199 The Court also reiterates that it is necessary to consider the total duration of the proceedings, from the initial procedural act until the final judgment is delivered, including any appeals that may be filed. 200 B.3 Application of the standards to the specific case 116. Taking into consideration the allegations of the parties and the Commission, the Court will now proceed to examine (i) the alleged lack of due diligence in the investigation of the alleged acts of torture reported by Mr. López, and then (ii) the alleged failure to comply with the obligation regarding reasonable time, before finally (iii) setting forth its conclusions. 117. Firstly, the Court notes that, based on the body of evidence contained in the case file, it has already determined that the Criminal Court of Guarantees’ first visit took place on May 30, 2000, at which time Mr. López gave a statement in the hearing for the application of precautionary measures (supra para. 38). 201 The Court recalls that the judge responsible for deciding on the legal situation of the detainee or defendant, on whether to release him or to order precautionary measures -as the first impartial authority with whom detainees have contact- must be the guarantor of compliance with the duty to investigate established in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Consequently, in cases in which there is a complaint or suspicion that a detained person has been subjected to torture, the judge must immediately refer the detained person to the competent authority for a medical examination in order to gather 195 Regarding the analysis of the complexity of the matter, the Court has taken into account, among other criteria, the complexity of the evidence, the number of parties to the action or the number of victims, the time that elapsed after what needed to be investigated was reported, the characteristics of the remedy contained in domestic legislation, and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No 30, para. 77 and 78, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, paras. 126 and 128. 196 Regarding the activity of the plaintiff in obtaining justice, the Court has taken into consideration whether his conduct has contributed in some degree to unduly prolonging the proceedings. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, paras. 126 and 129. 197 The Court has understood that, for the judgment to be completely effective, the judicial authorities should act quickly and without delay, as the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the implementation procedures be carried out without hindrance or undue delay in order to quickly, simply, and comprehensively satisfy their purpose. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 106, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, paras. 126 and 130. 198 Regarding the impact on the alleged victim’s legal situation, the Court has indicated that, to determine whether the time was reasonable, the effects caused by the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person concerned must be taken into account considering, among other factors, the matter in dispute. Cf. Case of National Association of Discharged and Retired Persons of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, para. 148, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, paras. 126 and 132. 199 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 126. 200 Cf. Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 71, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 126. 201 Cf. Judge of Second Criminal Court of Guarantees, interlocutory order of May 31, 2000 (evidence file, folios 1618 to 1623). 35