on the above criteria—the time taken, and where it fails to do so, the Court has broad authority to conduct its own assessment. 149 107. With regard to the procedural activity of the alleged victims, this Court has stated "that the filing of appeals constitutes an objective factor which should not be attributed either to the alleged victim or to the respondent State, but should be taken as an objective element when determining whether the duration of the proceeding exceeded the reasonable time limit." 150 108. For the purposes of analyzing the reasonable time, the Court usually considers the overall duration of the proceedings until the final judgment. 151 However, in certain cases it may be appropriate to specifically assess each of the stages of the process. 152 In the instant case, given the time that has elapsed since the facts occurred and the initiation of the investigations, it is not applicable to carry out an exhaustive analysis of each procedural stage. 153 109. In the instant case, the State did not initiate any investigation ex officio after the events occurred, but only did so 19 years later, when on November 17, 1998, the Chamber of Deputies urged the investigating judge in criminal matters of the Judicial District of La Paz to issue a first investigation order, which became effective on February 18, 1999 (supra para. 47). Eight years later, on December 12, 2007, the Second Circuit Criminal Court issued condemnatory judgment No. 129/2007 in the first instance, which was the subject matter of several appeals. On August 22, 2008, the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of La Paz confirmed in its terms the ruling in the portion convicting the defendants, and partly reversed it (supra para. 55). After several appeals, on October 25, 2010, Supreme Order 504 of the First Criminal Chamber of the Court (supra para. 61) was finally issued, a decision that was apparently not executed immediately and in full: one of the convicts was captured six years later, in 2016; and another of the convicts is currently a fugitive. 154 110. Although the criminal proceedings "Public Prosecutor v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al." were somewhat complex due to the number of persons involved and the nature of the facts investigated, the Court observes that the delay is related to irregularities related to the suspension of hearings and other actions aimed at delaying the process, including the request for annulment of the process when the time to issue the judgment drew near. The Court also 149 107. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 156, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 150 Cf. Case of Memoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 174, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 184, para. 142. 151 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107. 152 Cf. Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 403, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 109. 153 In this regard, a report of the Superior Court of Justice pointed out that "the process became more complex, proof of this can be evidenced by the voluminosity of the case file that [...] is translated into evidence for the prosecution/evidence for the defense repetition and other requests with the sole purpose of delaying the cause and avoiding the ruling of the judgment, which already exists and is pending of appeal for reversal" and cites different aspects as examples. Cf. Report of the Third Chamber of the Superior District Court of October 13, 2008 (case file of evidence, p. 256-266). 154 Although the judgment left three convictions in firm, the arrest warrants were sent three years later, on November 27, 2013 (case file of evidence, p. 477-478). Franz Pizarro Solano was declared in absentia and the proceedings to arrest him are not known, so he remains free. José Luis Ormachea España is registered as deceased. Finally, Felipe Froilán Molina Bustamante was captured in La Paz, six years after the judgment was handed down (supra para. 62). 34