139. Added to this is the excessive number of occasions on which Ms. Bedoya had to testify—12 times—as has been recognized by the State. 297 In cases of sexual violence, the Court has highlighted that the investigation must endeavor where possible to avoid re-victimization or the victim reexperiencing the deeply traumatic experience. 298 In this regard, the expert witness Jairo Enrique Cortés Pinzón stated that every time that Ms. Bedoya was asked by justice officials to take part in a procedure associated with her case, she had “a significant relapse in her health” that could continue to impact her for months due to her post-traumatic stress disorder, which in turn meant "constant treatment with monitoring and emotional support." 299 140. In view of all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the criminal investigation into the facts of May 25, 2000 was discriminatory on the basis of gender. b.1.3 Reasonable period of time 141. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice in cases of human rights violations must ensure, within a reasonable period of time, the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to everything necessary being done to learn the truth of what happened and investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those eventually found responsible. 300 Likewise, a prolonged delay in the process may constitute, in and of itself, a violation of judicial guarantees. 301 142. The Court has found that evaluation of the reasonable period of time must be conducted for each specific case with regard to the total length of the process, which could also include the execution of the final judgment. Thus, it has established that four elements must be taken into account in determining whether the guarantee of reasonable time is met, namely: a) the complexity of the matter; 302 b) the procedural activity of the interested party; 303 c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; 304 and d) the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of lines of investigation into the previous social or sexual behavior of the victims in cases of gender violence is merely a manifestation of policies or attitudes based on gender stereotypes.” Cf. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 209 and Case of Gutierrez Hernandez et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 170. 297 Cf. Final arguments brief presented by the State of April 23, 2021 (evidence file, folio 1495). Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 196, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 241. 298 299 40049). Cf. Expert opinion given before a notary public by Jairo Enrique Cortés Pinzón, March 5, 2021 (evidence file, folio Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 136. 300 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 123. 301 302 Regarding the analysis of the complexity of the matter, the Court has taken into account, among other criteria, the complexity of the evidence, the number of defendants or victims, the time elapsed since the news of the facts that must be investigated, the characteristics of the remedy set forth in the domestic legislation, and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 123. 303 Regarding the procedural activity of the person seeking justice, the Court has taken into consideration whether their procedural conduct has contributed to some degree to unduly prolonging the process. Cfr. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 123. 304 It has been the Court’s understanding that in order for judgments to be fully effective, the judicial authorities must act quickly and without delay, because the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the enforcement procedures be carried out without obstacles or undue delay so that they attain their objectives quickly, fully, and in a straightforward 52