of said norm, the Commission shall consider, in light of the concrete circumstances of the case, the elements that the bodies of the inter-American system have considered, namely: i) the complexity of the case; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and iv) the effects of the juridical situation of the party in the process.103 The Inter-American Court has considered that a long delay may per se constitute a violation of the principle of due process, 104 therefore, it is for the State to explain and demonstrate why it has required more time than would be reasonable to deliver final judgment in a specific case.105 137. In the present case, the victim’s next of kin claimed that the Investigation Service of Pichincha refused to receive the report of disappearance on November 11, 1990, pointing out that 48 hours had not passed since the disappearance; this was denied by the State. Nonetheless, some sources of public knowledge state that, at the time of the facts, it was a common practice to wait 48 hours to receive a complaint.106 In addition, this denial is consistent with the persistent context of the repressive structures within the Police and with the cover-up that operated in the present case in the terms already analyzed. This situation led to the first search, initiated on November 16, 1990, and it is reasonable to infer it had a negative impact in the situation of the alleged victim, taking into consideration that in light of a disappearance report, it is indispensable that the States act promptly in the first hours and days 107 to avoid materialization of extreme risk to the life and personal integrity involved in a disappearance, particularly, in a forced disappearance. 138. Additionally, the Commission highlights that all the investigations undertaken in relation to the forced disappearance of the victim are reduced to three police reports, without any evidence that the State initiated or carried out a formal criminal investigation in relation to these facts, beyond the generic reference of the State in its last report about the initiation of an investigation after the report of the Trust Commission. 139. Now, in relation to the content of the three police reports, the Commission observes that these evidence that the actions were limited to receiving the declarations and remittance of the commands ordering the search for the alleged victim, without any evidence of an analysis of the indications that resulted from said actions, as well as their prompt follow up. In these investigations, the authorities limited themselves to generically stating, that the authorities have visited “on various occasions” and “in different dates” hospitals, clinics, the morgue and detainment centers in search of the alleged victim, “without possibility to obtain any indication”, without referring to the circumstances of modality, time and location through which said actions were carried out. 140. In relation to the determination of the authors of and participants in the facts, the Commission observes that in the “police reports” there is no record that the State opened any lines of investigation aimed at clarifying any indication of the participation of state agents. On the contrary, the Commission recalls that in the third police report, they proposed the hypothesis that the disappearance was committed by members of the same subversive organization to which they considered the victim had belonged, without referring to the reasons to sustain said hypothesis, which was also not duly investigated. 141. The Commission adds to the above, that afterwards, the media published that a General knew the whereabouts of the remains of the victim and that State agents participated in the felony/crime, and on May 5, 2003, the Ecumenical Commission of Human Rights requested an investigation to clarify these 103 IACHR, Report No. 110/10, Case 12.539, Merits, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family, Argentina, October 21, 2010, para. 100. I/A Court H.R., Case of Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 164. 104 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. 105 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142. 106Ombudsman of Ecuador, Thematic Report of disappeared people in Ecuador: Analysis of State responses, statistics, access to justice and the socio-cultural context of the problem 2013-2014 (Spanish only), p. 23. 107 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 284. 24