authorities,373 and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings.374 274. The Court will now analyze the elements of the reasonable time in relation to: (a) the death of Benito Antonio Barrios; (b) the death of Narciso Barrios; (c) the searches of the homes of Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García, and (d) the deprivation of liberty, threats and violence to the detriment of Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Gustavo Ravelo, Jesús Ravelo, Elbira Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, and Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño. Regarding the other investigations, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to rule on them. 275. With regard to the first element, the Court observes that in none of these four cases the delay in the investigation can be justified by the complexity of the matter. Indeed, in the cases of the two deaths, these are not cases in which there are several victims, and they do not have particularly complex characteristics, because they relate to the death of a single individual, the possible perpetrators have been identified, and it has been verified that there were witnesses to the incident. Regarding the other two investigations, the authors have been identified by the victims or the witnesses, witnesses have been identified, and possible lines of investigation were provided relating to a possible reason for the incidents. 276. Regarding the second element, the victims or their next of kin, especially Eloisa Barrios in the case of the death of her brothers, assumed an active role through her lawyer, making the authorities aware of all the information she possessed. Also, on several occasions, they reported the lack of procedural action to various authorities and requested progress in the investigations, going as far as to file an application for amparo owing to the judicial delay in one case (supra paras. 192 to 194, 199 to 204, 206, 208, 211 and 217). 277. In relation to the conduct of the authorities, in the case of the investigation of the death of Benito Antonio Barrios, the Court has already indicated the delay in implementing certain procedures (supra paras. 234, 241 and 243). In addition, the Court has verified that since his death, which was when the investigation of the case began, to date, more than 13 years have passed and the criminal case in the domestic sphere is still being processed. Even though, since July 2005, the Prosecutor has ordered the implementation of new procedures relatively rapidly, up until that date more than five years had passed without the investigation agencies taking any measure. The passage of four years from the time formal charges were brought against four alleged perpetrators until a judge requested the reiteration of the arrest warrant and the summons to a hearing on June 8, 2011, is also excessive. 278. Moreover, this delay has given rise a violation of reasonable time, and an evident denial of justice. The fact that eight years passed before a request was made to carry out procedures such as blood tests on a piece of evidence, and the police technical inspection of the homes meant that the evidence was destroyed or unusable owing to the passage time (supra para. 194). In addition, the case file shows that the Public Prosecution Service indicated the prescription of the criminal action for the offense of misuse of firearms, when “eight years, eight months and eleven days” had elapsed (supra para. 196). 373 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 176, para. 112. 374 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 94, para. 155, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 176, para. 112. 89