51 133. The case was not marked by a special complexity. There were only two defendants (supra para. 54(32)). The substance had been seized and once it was identified it would determine the appropriateness of the procedures. There is no evidence in the dossier that Mr. López Álvarez carried out procedures that delayed or slowed down the processing of the case. 134. On the other hand, in the criminal procedure at least four annulments were issued due to different procedural irregularities: a partial one on July 25, 1997 and three absolute ones on September 9, 1998, March 10, 1999, and May 2, 2001 (supra paras. 54(23), 54(28), 54(30), and 54(33)). 135. The nullities which served to the purposes of adjusting the procedures to the due process were motivated by the lack of diligence in the actions of the judicial authorities in charge of the case. The internal judge, when carrying out the actions later annulled, did not comply with the duty of directing the process pursuant to law. This was determining in the fact that the alleged victim was obliged to wait more than six years for the State to administrate justice. 136. Based on the above considerations, and on the global study of the criminal procedure against Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, we point out that the same lasted more than six years. The State did not observe the principle of reasonable time enshrined in the American Convention, due to the sole responsibility of the judicial authorities who should have administrate justice. 137. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States to offer all people submitted to its jurisdiction an effective judicial recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.103 It is not enough for the recourses to exist formally; it is necessary that the be effective,104 that is, the person must be given a real opportunity to present a simple and prompt recourse that allows them to obtain, in their case, the judicial protection required.105 138. The existence of this guarantee “represents one of the basic mainstays, not only of the American Convention, but also of the Rule of Law in a democratic society in the sense set forth in the Convention.”106 139. In this regard, this Court has reiterated that said obligation does not end with the legal existence of a remedy; it is necessary that it be suitable to fight the violation, and its application by the competent authority must be effective.107 103 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 113; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 183, and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 92. 104 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 184; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 92, and Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 131. 105 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 93; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 97, para. 75, and Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 131. 106 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 184; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 93, and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 97, para. 75. 107 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 184; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 93, and Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 131.