diligent investigation into the alleged instigators, in spite of the existence of relevant circumstantial evidence of their possible responsibility. 2. The criminal investigation for the crimes of "false testimony and false accusation" and the civil suit for damages 124. As regards the two other proceedings initiated against María Luisa Acosta, the Commission recalls that two days after the definitive dismissal of the alleged instigators of Mr. García Valle's murder, the Bluefields District Civil Court ordered the attachment of the house of María Luisa Acosta and her husband. That attachment was ordered at the request of Messrs. Tsokos and Martinez who claimed that Mrs. Acosta "owed them money.” The attachment was subsequently maintained in the suit for damages brought against Maria Luisa Acosta for the “unfounded” charges that she had made against the complainants. 125. The Commission also finds that on October 18, 2002, another criminal proceeding was instituted as a result of the complaint filed by Mrs. Tsokos and Martinez against Mrs. Acosta for the alleged crimes of "false testimony and false accusation." In her answer to the suit Mrs. Acosta said the following: This action [was] clearly a patent abuse of rights and constitutes fraud; the intention of the complainants is[…] to continue using criminal action and the judicial system as a means of harassment and coercion to make me desist from bringing my husband's murderous to trial.221 126. The Commission recalls that, Article 8 of the American Convention gives every person subject to a judicial proceeding the right to a hearing by a competent judge or court, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time.222 Bearing in mind the considerations for analyzing reasonableness of time described hereinabove, the Commission finds that neither of the additional proceedings instituted against Mrs. Acosta was complex. As was described, both the civil suit for damages and the criminal proceeding for false accusation and false testimony were based on the claims made by Mrs. Tsokos and Martinez, which, in turn, were based on the charges that Mrs. Acosta made against them. Therefore, in the framework of these two proceedings, it was incumbent upon the domestic authorities to determine if Mrs. Acosta's accusation was a legitimate exercise of her rights in seeking justice for her husband's murder, or if it was cause for punishment in civil or criminal proceedings With regard to the second element of analysis, the information available offers no justification as to why it took the judicial authorities more than two years to reach this determination. 127. On the contrary, the Commission sees unwarranted delays in simple procedures, particularly in response to the requests made by Mrs. Acosta. Thus, for example, in the civil suit the court took almost 8 months to admit the motion in which Mrs. Acosta's attorney requested that the attachment be lifted.223 That was in spite of the fact that in several briefs submitted by Mrs. Acosta's attorney the court was requested to issue its ruling promptly because of the harm that the attachment was causing. This behavior contrasts with the 20 days that the same judicial authority took to admit the appeal presented by Peter Martinez against the admission of the incidental motion to annul entered by Mrs. Acosta.224 There is nothing in the record to show that Mrs. Acosta obstructed the progress of these proceedings or was in any way 221 Appendix 149. Answer to the suit filed by Mrs. Acosta's representative, August 14, 2003, File No. 298-02, Bluefields District Civil and Criminal Court (Offense: False testimony and false accusation), folios 40-43. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 222 32. IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 11.219 (Nicholas Chapman Blake), August 3, 1995, p. 223Appendix 140. Incidental motion for permanent annulment filed by Mrs. Acosta's legal representative, June 26, 2002, folios 18-21, File 35-02, Bluefields District Civil Court (Attachment / damages ). 224Appendix 145. Order, Court of Appeals in Bluefields, Civil Division, March 25, 2003. Case file No. 06-2003 Court of Appeals in Bluefields, Civil Division, folio 6. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007.