30 98. The Commission alleged that “the way the militaries acted [in the present case] required that the State officers in charge of the investigation make their best efforts to carry out an immediate and urgent search” in order to identify and punish the responsible of the events. With the lost of the case file, the Commission considered that a timely and detailed investigation was not possible. As to the analysis of the reasonable time, the complaint alleges that “18 years has passed since the events, and there is no judicial proceedings opened.” Furthermore, the Commission mentioned that the proceedings before the Military Justice for almost a decade clearly compromised the independence and impartiality of the legal procedure. In view of that fact, the Commission pointed out that the State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victim and his relatives. 99. The representatives reiterated the legal basis pointed out by the Commission and stated that “the State is responsible for not carrying out an investigation in 17 years as from the [facts], as well as for not guaranteeing the resources nor providing guarantees for the exercise of rights in favor of the victim's next of kin." According to the representatives’ point of view, the investigation assigned to the military jurisdiction resulted in the violated of Article 8 and 25 of the Convention in two senses. In the first place, because no investigative judicial proceedings were, allegedly, carried out in the time the case was assigned to such jurisdiction. And in the second place, because such competence is neither independent nor impartial to hear the violations committed against Mr. Escué Zapata. 100. The State acknowledged “its international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) […] and 25(1) […] in conjunction with […] 1(1), of the American Convention,” to the detriment of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata and his relatives. Furthermore, it acknowledged "the delay in the proceedings and in the resolution of the domestic investigation, prosecution and punishment of the alleged responsible during the time of the domestic proceedings, which was the result, among other factors, of: The initial loss of the case file, the reconstruction of the case file and the period of procedural inactivity." Without prejudice of the foregoing, the State observed that regardless of the period of time, the investigative body has made an effort to carry out the investigative judicial proceedings and that at the moment, the proceedings are being processed in accordance with "international parameters." 101. The Tribunal considers it is useful to analyze if the proceedings commenced in the domestic venue for the events of the instant case have respected the right to a hearing with the due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, impartial and independent tribunal and if it has developed the possibilities of a judicial remedy to guarantee the right to access to justice, truth and reparation. a) Reasonable time 102. In relation to the reasonable time, this Tribunal has pointed out that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or his relatives to every efforts being made to learn the truth of the facts and to punish the responsible.101 The Court finds that three elements should be taken into account to determine the fairness of the time incurred in the judicial proceedings: a) the complexity of 101 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 98, para. 289; Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru, supra note 38, para. 166.