particular case.136 The reasonableness of the time should be weighed in relation to the total duration of the criminal proceeding. In criminal matters the time begins when the first procedural act is filed directed against a named person as the person likely responsible for a certain criminal offense and ends when the final and firm judgment is handed down. 137 149. In their consistent case-law, the organs of the inter-American system have taken into consideration three factors that are relevant for the analysis of the instant case, namely: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (c) the procedural activity of the interested party.138 The Court has also established that in addition to these elements, one should take into account the interest at stake and the impact caused of the duration of the procedure on the situation of the person involved, in the following terms: the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that, in this analysis of reasonableness, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account; bearing in mind, among other elements the matter in dispute. If the passage of time has a relevant impact on the judicial situation of the individual, the proceedings should be carried out more promptly so that the case is decided as soon as possible. 139 150. The Commission will analyze whether, through the investigations begun domestically, the State has satisfied its obligation to investigate the facts of the instant case pursuant to the standards described above. This analysis will be done, first, with respect to due diligence in the investigation, and second with respect to implementation of the guarantee of a reasonable time. 4.1 On the duty to investigate with due diligence 151. The Commission observes that the first criminal complaint was filed by the family members of Mr. Poblete Vilches in November 2001. Due to several courts finding themselves without jurisdiction, it was only in February 2002 that a decision was made as to which judicial authority had jurisdiction to hear the above-referenced criminal complaint. Once the jurisdiction was determined, the Commission does not have any information indicating that any investigative steps were taken until October 2002, eight months later, when the Hospital Sótero del Río was asked for the first time for a fundamental piece of evidence, consisting of Mr. Poblete Vilches’s clinical file. 152. According to the evidence in the record before the Commission, it was only in 2003, more than a year-and-a-half after the complaint was filed, that some persons were called to testify. The Commission observes that from 2003 to 2008, i.e. during a five-year period, the authorities in charge of the investigation did no more than receive some statements and request one expert 136 para. 142. I/A Court HR, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, 137 I/A Court HR, Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168. 138 IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11,506), December 27, 2002, para. 76. See also I/A Court HR, Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 105; UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 of August 23, 2007, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, para.35. 139 I/A Court HR, Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155. See also, I/A Court HR, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, paras. 112 and 115; I/A Court HR, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156; I/A Court HR, Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 133; I/A Court HR, Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 244. See also, IACHR. Report 83-10. 12,584. Merits. July 13, 2010. Para. 77. 30