35 other words, the criminal case –the investigation and criminal court proceedings- took nine years and five months. a. The complexity of the case 176. Given the criteria mentioned above for evaluating the reasonableness of the time taken to investigate and prosecute the case, the Commission observes that for purposes of the case in the domestic courts, there was just one victim whose identity was easy to determine; the facts were immediately brought to the State’s attention, and the person who fired the shot was identified on the very day of the events. Likewise, the appropriate authorities had unimpeded access to the scene of the events. Given the circumstances,119 the Commission considers that this was not a particularly complex case. b. Conduct of the judicial authorities 177. As for the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission notes first that there was confusion as to which jurisdiction had competence over this case and the time taken to settle this matter protracted the process. The investigation formally began on September 23, 1992, with issuance of the order for an investigation of the crime following the complaint filed by Mrs. Ibarra Ponce. The information available indicates that while some evidentiary measures were taken early in the case, during the first 13 months of investigation, on several occasions the case file went back and forth between the authorities in the police jurisdiction and authorities in the ordinary jurisdiction, who disqualified themselves and then retracted their own disqualifications. Thus, it was not until October 4, 1993, more than a year after the death of the child García Ibarra, that the Quito Superior Court ordered the ordinary courts to take jurisdiction in the case. 178. In addition, a series of unwarranted delays occurred in the criminal proceedings, which the Supreme Court described as “irregularities” in a ruling it delivered on February 26, 2002. The Supreme Court underscored the fact that the Esmeraldas Superior Court had taken four years to issue its ruling on an appeal filed to have a judgment set aside. Compounding the problem was the fact that the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court took more than 18 months to decide the cassation appeal. 179. Summarizing, the Commission considers that sufficient elements are present to conclude that the judicial authorities did not act with the necessary due diligence in the domestic prosecution of this case; quite the contrary, the case was encumbered by a series of needless procedural problems and unwarranted delays. c. Procedural activity of the interested party 180. As for the last of the three standards, the procedural activity of the interested party, the Commission notes that on September 16, 1992, Mrs. Vicenta Ibarra Ponce filed a complaint against police officer Guillermo Segundo Cortez Escobedo accusing him of the murder of her teenage son José Luis García Ibarra. Nothing in the case file suggests that the adolescent’s family engaged in any 119 For a judgment along the same lines, see: I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, paragraph 103.