responsible for the delay in their resolution. On the contrary, her reiterated requests for them to be disposed of promptly are on record. 128. The IACHR has established that unjustified prosecutions of human rights defenders entail psychological and financial burdens, which harass and frighten them and diminish their work. These burdens are aggravated by the unreasonable prolongation of the criminal processes.225 With respect to judicial proceedings of this type the Commission had held that a timely judicial decision contributes to the public and complete disclosure of truth, making it less likely for defenders subject to proceedings to be stigmatized by the proceedings, and also making it less likely that the community of human rights defenders will be hampered from continuing to report human rights violations.226 129. The Commission concludes that the State of Nicaragua committed a violation of the reasonable-time guarantee in the context of the two proceedings analyzed in this section. Furthermore, the Commission considers that in light of the grounds on which these proceedings were initiated, coupled with the failure to adopt decisions in a timely manner and the above-described context in which the judicial authorities deliberately omitted to investigate the allegations that the persons who instituted the proceedings against Mrs. Acosta were the alleged instigators, these proceedings, like the one brought for abetment examined in the preceding section, were mechanisms for her intimidation and harassment in reprisal for her quest for justice for her husband's murder. 3. Conclusion 130. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State of Nicaragua violated Mrs. María Luisa Acosta's right to a hearing in a reasonable time and the right to defend herself recognized in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention. In addition, the Commission concludes, based on the ineffectiveness of the remedies invoked to seek protection against such violations, that the State also violated her right to judicial protection recognized at Article 25 of the Convention, all in connection with the obligations enshrined in Article 1.1 thereof. 131. Finally, the Commission deems is appropriate to recall that criminalization affects defenders both individually and collectively. The IACHR has noted that for a human rights defender personally, it can cause anguish, insecurity, frustration, and a feeling of powerlessness before State authorities, as well as unexpected economic burdens and damage to the defender's reputation and credibility. The IACHR has also said that criminalization stigmatizes human rights defenders collectively and sends an intimidating message to anyone who intended to denounce or had already denounced human rights violations.227 132. Therefore, the IACHR considers that initiation of baseless criminal cases against a defender can lead to a violation of the right to personal integrity when the harassment caused by bringing criminal 225In this regard, it is important to mention that the IACHR referred to criminal proceedings in its “Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas”; however, bearing in mind the consistent case law of the inter-American system, the application of Article 8 of the American Convention (fair trial) is not limited to judicial remedies in a strict sense, “but [to] all the requirements that must be observed in the procedural stages,” (This translator's version of the quotation.) in order for all persons to be able to defend their rights adequately vis-à-vis any type of State action that could affect them. That is to say that the due process of law must be respected in any act or omission on the part of the State bodies in a proceeding, whether of a punitive administrative, or of a judicial nature. I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. Case v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, par. 124. Cf. I/A Court HR., Case of the Constitutional Court, Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 49, par. 69; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A No. 9, par. 27. See also IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 66, December 31, 2011, par. 109. Available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/defenders/docs/pdf/defenders2011.pdf 226IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 66, December 31, 2011, par. 111. Available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/defenders/docs/pdf/defenders2011.pdf 227IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 66, December 31, 2011, par. 78. On the harm that being subjected to an unfounded criminal proceeding causes to a defender, see IACHR Hearing on Criminalization of Human Rights Defenders, 140th regular session, October 26, 2010.