the matter; 193 (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; 194 (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; 195 and (d) the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the alleged victim. 196 178. The Court recalls that the State is responsible for justifying—based on the above criteria—the time taken, and where it fails to do so, the Court has broad authority to conduct its own assessment. 197 In this sense, Argentina justified the delay of the processes based on the complexity involved, and, with respect to the facts to the detriment of Julien Cáceres, on the impossibility of moving the cases forward given that the persons to be charged were not on Argentine territory and Uruguay had declined to turn them over, citing extradition requirements. 179. Regarding the first element—that is, the complexity of the matter—the Court is aware, as has been explained in this Judgment, that the facts on which this case is based were committed in the context of a systematic plan to repress the civilian population and violate human rights. This meant a general dynamic of criminal activity and impunity was orchestrated by the most senior government authorities, to which was added the framework of inter-State coordination under Operation Condor, all of which certainly make it complex to investigate and prosecute what happened, as doing so requires untangling criminal schemes that were planned and supported secretly and unfolded both domestically and internationally, with multiple victims, perpetrators, and facts needing to be clarified. 198 The complexity of the processes is therefore clear. In view of this, the actions taken by the judicial authorities to address the issues arising from this complexity must be determined, without losing sight of the other elements causing delays in the response expected by the victims of the crimes committed. 180. Regarding the second element, referring to the actions of the alleged victims in the specific case, the Court recalls that, in 2012, through his representative, Anatole became a plaintiff in case 2637/04. His intervention there was aimed at requesting that certain procedures be carried out; requesting the expansion of the investigations into certain facts; and pointing that, in his opinion, there were "delays and omissions" in the case’s handling (supra para. 100). Therefore, the actions of the alleged victims did not contribute to the delay Regarding the analysis of the complexity of the matter, the Court has taken into account, among other criteria, the complexity of the evidence, the number of defendants or victims, the characteristics of the remedy set forth in the domestic legislation, and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, par. 78, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, pars. 142 and 143. 194 Regarding the procedural activity of the person seeking justice, the Court has taken into consideration whether their procedural conduct has contributed to some degree to unduly prolonging the process. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, par. 57, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, pars. 142 and 144. 195 The Court has found that as the ones in charge of the process, judicial authorities are obliged to direct and guide the judicial proceeding so as not to sacrifice justice and due process of law to formalism. Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 211; and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, pars. 167 and 172, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 142. 196 The Court has found that if the passage of time has a significant impact on the judicial situation of the person, the proceedings must be carried out more promptly so that the case is decided as soon as possible. Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 155, Case of the Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antonio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, pars. 223, 229, 234, 238, and 240, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, pars. 142 and 145. 197 Cf. Case of Anzulado Castro v. Peru, supra, par. 156, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 142. 198 The judge in charge of case 2637/04 indicated that the investigation of the facts has revealed more than 2,000 victims in almost 50 secret detention and torture centers, leading to the indictment of 266 people. Cf. Order of July 17, 2020 issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 14 to the answering brief, folio 11060). 193 47