and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the presumed victim.176 The Court recalls that it is for the State to justify, based on these criteria, why it has required the time that has passed to process a case and, if it does not do so, the Court has broad powers to form its own opinion in this regard.177 168. Regarding the guarantee of a reasonable time, based on the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court notes two issues that merit examination in this case. On the one hand, the passage of approximately six years between the filing of the actions of unconstitutionality by the presumed victims on November 27, and December 24 and 26, 2003, and the handing down of Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 on December 30, 2009. On the other hand, the delay in deciding the appeal for clarification filed on February 1, 2010, by Mr. Ríos Ávalos and admitted on September 2, 2019, and the inexistence to date of a decision on the appeal for clarification, also filed in 2010, by Mr. Fernández Gadea. 169. It should be pointed out that the State justified the Constitutional Chamber’s delay in deciding the actions of unconstitutionality filed by the presumed victims, by “the successive disqualifications of the justices.” 170. When examining the parameters established by this Court’s case law, it can be observed that the purpose of the actions of unconstitutionality – although they undoubtedly included issues that had political and constitutional repercussions – from a legal point of view, were no different from the disputes that fall within the competence of a constitutional court. Furthermore, the specific issues contested in the appeals for clarification filed by the Prosecutor General and the presumed victims corresponded to issues that were eminently procedural and without any broader scope. Consequently, the complexity of the judicial actions and of the appeals for clarification that were filed did not justify the delay in deciding them. 171. Regarding the procedural activity of the interested parties – in this case the two appellants – an examination of the case files reveals that, over the years, their intervention was continuously and repeatedly addressed at requesting that the court sit and noting the “urgency” of issuing the corresponding decisions with regard to both the actions of unconstitutionality and, once these had been decided, the appeals for clarification.178 172. Regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, numerous officials called on to compose the Constitutional Chamber to hear the arguments disqualified themselves. This delayed the issue of the corresponding rulings for several years. This happened before the actions of unconstitutionality were decided and was repeated following the requests for clarification. Even though the cases involved two former justices of the Supreme Court – which allows this As regard the effects on the legal situation of the presumed victim, the Court has indicated that, in order to determine whether the time has been reasonable, the effects that the duration has had on the legal situation of the individual concerned must be taken into account, considering, among other factors, the matter in dispute. Cf. Case of the National Association of Dismissed and Retired Employees 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 Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 123. 177 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 Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 123. 178 Cf. Inter alia, briefs presented by the petitioner on February 26, 2004, December 28, 2004, April 7, 2005, August 25, 2005, June 9, 2006, August 9, 2006, August 16, 2007, February 1, 2010, and May 10, 2010, included in the case file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 10789, 10791, 10813, 10815, 10921, 10923, 10927, 11445, 11447 and 11461), and briefs presented by the petitioner on April 27, 2004, August 16, 2004, July 8, 2005, February 27, 2006, July 28, 2007, December 17, 2007, and February 1, 2010, included in the case file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11841, 11849, 12053, 12057, 12077, 12185 to 12189, 12687 and 12688). 176 43