report and further failed to offer an effective remedy against them. The Commission consequently finds that the State of Guatemala is responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 19 and 1.1 thereof, with respect to Osmín Tobar Ramírez and J.R.. Furthermore, the Commission finds the State of Guatemala internationally responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Flor Ramírez and Gustavo Tobar. iii) Reasonableness of the duration of the review process 214. Article 8.1 of the American Convention provides that one of the elements of due process is that the courts must resolve the cases placed before them within a reasonable time. Thus, an excessive delay may constitute, in and of itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial,286 and, for that reason, it falls to the State to explain and prove why it required more time than would be reasonable to deliver final judgment in a specific case.287 215. Therefore, the reasonableness of the time taken must be assessed in light of the overall duration of the proceedings.288 According to the terms of the Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Commission must take into consideration, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the four elements used by the Court in its recent judgments. Those elements are: (i) the complexity of the matter, (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party, (iii) the actions of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.289 In the case at hand, the review process lasted from August 25, 1997, until the case was archived on September 19, 2002: that is, almost five years and one month. 216. The Commission notes that the State has not argued the complexity of the matter as a reason for the delay in resolving the motion for review. As regards the participation of the parties, the Commission notes that Mr. Tobar and Mrs. Ramírez contributed actively to the proceedings, by seeking judicial protection against the infringements of their rights and those of their children; but those are not actions that can be read as a factor that contributed to the delay in resolving this remedy. Regarding the actions of the authorities involved and the nature of the interests at play, the Commission notes that those authorities failed to observe the exceptional diligence required in cases in which the legal situation of a child is to be decided, with an impact on his or her family life, particularly when the passage of time can be a factor in determining the child’s best interests. 217. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the total duration of the review procedure is greatly in excess of what could be deemed reasonable and therefore constitutes a violation of Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the Ramírez children, Mr. Tobar, and Mrs. Ramírez, and in conjunction with Article 19 thereof with respect to the children. 3. The Ramírez brothers’ right to a name and identity 286 I/A Court H. R. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 287 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 142. I/A Court H. R. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168. 288 289 I/A Court H. R. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 164. 43