Valenzuela.117 However, on June 21, 2007, the death certificate was issued indicating that the body "belongs to an 'unknown man'" and it was not until November 16, 2007 that the death certificate was rectified and on September 18, 2007 the Prosecutor's Office requested to rectify the death certificate since it had been possible to identify the deceased as Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila,118 which is why on November 16, 2007 the name of Tirso Román Valenzuela was recorded on the Death Certificate. (supra para. 99). 139. In addition, this Court is struck by the fact that the investigation protocols in force at that time were not used, the implementation of which was necessary to collect all the evidence and indications that would allow the crime scene to be clarified. Therefore, since said elements are unrepeatable, they had to be processed with the greatest possible care, even more so when these elements could help determine whether it was an extrajudicial execution. In this sense, it is evident that the protection, preservation and cordoning off of the crime scene was deficient, that the actions carried out do not provide further details on the reconstruction of the events, nor documents that record the way in which the criminal act was carried out, nor is there photographic material of the scene of the crime.119 140. Regarding the assertions made by the Commission and the representatives regarding the participation of state agents in the facts, despite the fact that the State has disputed it, it has not disproved it through a serious and diligent investigation. Therefore, it is necessary for the State to take into account said actions where relevant to clarifying the death of Mr. Valenzuela in the investigation that is under way in the domestic jurisdiction. 141. The Court considers that the omissions that occurred in the investigation of this case have prevented the clarification of the facts and the diligent investigation, prosecution and, where appropriate, punishment of those possibly responsible for the events, despite the fact that it has been nearly 13 years since the start of the investigation. 142. On this point, this Court has considered that a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees of a fair trial. In this case, given the time that has elapsed, it is not necessary to carry out an exhaustive analysis in this regard. 120 Therefore, the Court Cf. Fingerprint expert opinion of December 26, 2006, supra. Prosecution Brief of September 18, 2007, supra. 119 In this regard, in her statement given at the public hearing before this Court on March 7, 2019, the expert witness Olga Patricia Roldán stated that: “[w]hose protocols […] have of course remained the same during the time have improved, these protocols have been established forcing all the pertinent diligence to be carried out, but at that time all the procedures submitted had already been established, which I argue in my expert opinion, toxicology was already done for violent deaths, X-rays were already done, it was already known that all those diligences were needed in these cases”. In addition, the expert witness indicated that “the processing of the crime scene was not carried out by the crime scene team of the Public Prosecution despite the fact that it is an hour away from the location, the crime scene was not cordoned off, […] there is no drawing of a layout of the crime scene and this was important for the location of the victims, there is no description of the method used to collect the evidence […], none of the elements collected at the crime scene were photographed, marked, numbered and packaged correctly, the corpses were not individualized and marked, it shows a photograph showing the incorrect packaging if you see in the bag it has a list of objects it contains all of them in the same bag next to it are all the objects that it contained from various places at the crime scene […], within the evidence from the scene a rifle holder is mentioned that was never analyzed, the ballistic evidence shows several cartridges and shell casings fragments of jackets, projectile fragments of various calibers, among which rifles that could be AK-47, etc., all this is based on the ballistics report […] it is not documented if the position of a motorcycle that was found at the scene of the crime has any relationship with the victims or the perpetrators.” 117 118 120 The same would imply, in order to determine if there was reasonableness in the time elapsed in the proceedings, carefully examine different elements of the case: a) complexity of the matter; b) procedural activity of the interested party; c) conduct of the judicial authorities, and d) the impact on the legal situation of the person involved in the process (Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 155, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, paragraph 193.) 36