22 reasonableness: a) complexity of the matter, b) procedural activity of the interested party and c) conduct 79 of the judicial authorities. 120. In a preliminary analysis of these elements, the Commission indicates that the analysis of reasonable time period of domestic proceedings is understood to cover, in principle, from the moment the authorities learn about the facts until a final judgment is issued. Particularly in criminal matters, the reasonable time period must include the entire proceeding, including the appeals court remedies that can 80 later be applicable. 121. As far as the complexity of this matter, the Commission considers that upon the news of the murder of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, the State did not take quick and effective measures to gather evidence that would have permitted the identification of those responsible, even though it had been provided with information from relatives of the victims and witnesses at the scene of the crime. Additionally, the IACHR observes that the State has not offered specific, concrete information indicating that this case is characterized by a high level of complexity that has made a judicial resolution of the circumstances at hand difficult. Taking into consideration the number of facts and subjects being investigated, neither can it justify the delay on those grounds and based on the possibility of complications in the matter. In addition, it has not been asserted that in the criminal proceeding, there was any kind of situation that would imply an abnormal burden with regard to the workload of the judicial authorities. 122. The system's case law has established that the right to access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time period, the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to know the truth about 81 what happened and punish those eventually found responsible. Effectively, the Inter-American Court has established that the right to the truth is found within the right of the victim or his/her family members for the competent State bodies to resolve the facts that caused the violation and establish responsibility 82 through the investigation and trial provided for in articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 123. This right is based on the conviction that learning the truth is one of the most effective measures for preventing the recurrence of grave violations of human rights and of consolidating a democratic system under the rule of law. Furthermore, the State has the obligation to make all the information at its disposal available to the victims and their relatives, and it must use all measures within its power to collect that information. Therefore, the satisfaction of the right to truth demands the procedural determination of the most complete history possibly, which includes the establishment of all the individuals who participated in the violations and their corresponding responsibilities. That investigation must be carried out by the State as a juridical duty and not as a simple processing of private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of victims or their relatives or the submission of evidentiary elements by private parties. 124. The Commission emphasizes that, in light of the rights enshrined in the Convention, the enjoyment and effectiveness of the rights to a fair trial and judicial guarantees cannot be blocked by actions or omissions of the authorities in charge of meting out justice and protecting the population. 79 Inter-American Court. Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124. para. 160. Likewise, European Court of Human Rights. Wimmer v. Germany, no. 60534/00, § 23, 24 May 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 129, 8 February 2005, and Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 45, 18 January 2005. 80 Inter-American Court, Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 189; citing the Inter-American Court, Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120; Inter-American Court, Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94; Inter-American Court, Case of Suárez Rosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71. 81 82 Inter-American Court, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 382. Inter-American Court. Case of Barrios Altos. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 48. Case of Bámaca Vélasquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201. Case of Blanco Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 62 and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 148 and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, Judgment of November 25, 2003, paras. 217 and 218.