1.2. Reasonable time 169. 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, a long delay may per se constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial. 252 For that reason, it falls to the State to explain and prove why it has required more time than would be reasonable to deliver final judgment in a specific case. 253 170. Therefore, the reasonableness of the time taken must be assessed in light of the overall duration of the criminal proceedings.254 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. These 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. 255 171. Regarding the complexity of the matter, the State claimed that this was the factor behind the delay in the proceedings, since the case entailed several incidents involving numerous people. Nevertheless, the State of Honduras did not explain how those factors influenced the trial delays. 172. The Commission holds that, as the Court has ruled, a delay in conducting an investigation cannot be justified by claiming the complexity of the matter when (i) the possible perpetrators have been identified, (ii) there are witnesses, and (iii) possible lines of investigation exist.256 In any event, for the complexity argument to be admissible, it is not enough for the State to make a generic claim that a matter is complex. Specific information connecting the complexity with the delay must be presented in each case. In the case at hand, the Commission has already noted the failure to follow up on evidence regarding the perpetrators, together with a string of shortcomings and omissions that make it clear that the delay was not on account of the complexity of the case. 173. Regarding the participation of the interested parties, the Commission notes that although it is the State’s duty to pursue investigations on an ex officio basis, the victim’s next of kin and the witnesses have contributed actively by giving statements to the proceedings. In addition, their legal representatives followed up on and encouraged the investigation, and they complained on repeated occasions about the delays in carrying out formalities and about the lengthy periods of procedural inactivity. 174. As regards the actions of the judicial authorities, the Commission refers back to the delays, shortcomings, irregularities, and obstacles described previously (paras. 143-146, 152-156, and 159-168 above). The fact that between 2003 and 2009 no major formalities were carried out to cast light on the crime is particularly serious. 175. Regarding the fourth element, the Court has said that in order to determine the reasonableness of the duration, attention must be paid to the effect of the length of the procedure on the legal 252 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; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Moiwana Community, Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C No. 124, para. 160. 253 para. 142. I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Judgment of August 31, 2004, Series C No. 111, 254 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. In addition, see: IACHR, Report No. 77/02, Case 11.506, Merits, Waldermar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Victor dos Santos (Paraguay), December 27, 2002, para. 76. 255 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, Judgment of May 30, 2012, Series C No. 259, para. 164. 256 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2011, Series C No. 237, para. 275. 33