19 date of the trial commencement deed. In other words, statutory limitations applied de iure on account of the passage of time in accordance with the terms of the law. In addition, Article 398 of the Criminal Code required judges hearing criminal matters to refer orders declaring statutory limitations for consultation by a 94 higher court. The Commission consequently believes that in this case, an appeal against the statutory limitations order was not a suitable remedy for reversing that decision or – contrary to the State’s contentions – the only possible way to reopen the proceedings, in that an ex officio consultation was needed. 77. On this point, the IACHR further notes that the expiration of the criminal proceedings in the case at hand does not automatically trigger the State’s international responsibility; to make such a determination, the effectiveness of the remedy provided for in Article 25 of the Convention must be analyzed in light of compliance with the due guarantees established in Article 8 – in particular, as regards “reasonable time” under the following criteria: complexity of the matter, actions of the judicial authorities 95 and the impact of the duration of the proceedings, and the procedural activity of the affected individuals. This analysis will be performed regardless of the fact that it is the duty of the State, in its capacity as the bringer of punitive action, to initiate and pursue procedures toward identifying, and, potentially, prosecuting and punishing those responsible by diligently carrying through all phases in the proceedings 96 to their conclusion. a. Complexity of the matter 78. The petitioner claims that in the case at hand, there was an unwarranted delay in the administration of justice; however, the State contends that it acted with diligence but that the matter is highly complex, in that establishing medical negligence and the corresponding penalties demands numerous technical and scientific studies that must be carefully analyzed by the judge. 79. The Commission believes that this case involves certain aspects that could make it complex by reason of their relationship with medical science; however, an analysis of the case file fails to indicate that the delay in the proceedings was due to the analysis of those matters or technical evidence. It further believes that the limit of five years set by law for the activation of statutory limitations should have been enough, in light of that complexity, for the Public Prosecution Service and the judicial authorities to investigate and rule on the case. These considerations, together with the level of progress in the proceedings (which will be analyzed below), indicate that the complexity of the matter was not a determining factor in the lack of effectiveness of the remedy in the case at hand. b. Actions of the judicial authorities and impact of the duration of the proceedings 80. The petitioner claims that the State is responsible for failing to prosecute the health professionals accused of medical malpractice with respect to Ms. Suárez Peralta, while the State maintains that it provided adequate remedies and upheld the guarantee of reasonable time. 81. The obligation of conducting an investigation and of prosecuting and punishing those responsible for criminal human rights violations is a nondelegable duty of the State. On this point, the IACHR has stated that whenever a publicly actionable offense is committed, the State has the obligation 94 Article 398 stated: Criminal judges shall be required to refer all dismissal rulings to the corresponding superior court for consultation purposes. Orders declaring the activation of statutory limitations in public criminal actions shall also be referred for consultation, by both criminal courts and criminal judges. 95 See: I/A Court H. R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C No. 192, para. 155. 96 IACHR, Report No. 27/99, Case 11.697, Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto Giralt, March 9, 1999, para. 40.