incompatible with the American Convention and specifically with the principle of presumption of innocence125. 122. The Commission is aware that the Constitutional Court of Ecuador subsequently ruled that the Law was unconstitutional, acknowledging it was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.126 Nevertheless, this Law was applied in this case. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the State is responsible for violating the principle of presumption of innocence provided for under Article 8(2) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mario Montesinos Mejía. 5. Reasonableness of [the duration] of criminal proceedings 123. The Court has held that “the reasonableness of time referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the total time demanded by criminal proceedings against a specific defendant until a final and nonappealable judgment is rendered.” In criminal matters, this time period runs from the first procedural act addressed to a specific person allegedly responsible for a given offense.”127 In considering whether the duration of criminal proceedings was reasonable, the Commission highlights that a case-by-case analysis must be conducted based on the particular circumstances thereof and that in accordance with the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention, four elements must be considered: (a) The complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (d) the effects that the delay in the proceedings may have on the victim’s legal situation.128 124. With respect to the three criminal proceedings, the Commission notes that two of them lasted approximately six years. With respect to the prosecution for engaging in front operations, the IACHR notes that it does not have information about the decision on the remedy of appeal of the judgment that acquitted Mr. Montesinos, but, in any case, it would have lasted for more than six years. As for the matter’s complexity, the IACHR notes that the records of the case file that it has do not reveal that the investigations were particularly complex with respect to the charges against Mr. Montesinos, nor was this proven by the State. 125. The IACHR also notes that from the time the investigation began, evidence available to judicial authorities from the initial phase of the proceedings—essentially, Mr. Montesinos’ preliminary statement—were used as grounds to show his criminal liability. This evidence was described in the Operación Ciclón police report that was published 30 days after Mr. Montesinos’ arrest. The Commission has no knowledge of subsequent procedures that were particularly complex and would have been considered in determining Mr. Montesinos’ criminal liability. Indeed, the States has not submitted pleadings or evidence in this regard. 126. As to the conduct of domestic authorities, the Commission notes that in this case the State did not explain or submit specific evidence showing that judicial authorities acted with the necessary diligence to ensure that Mr. Montesinos was provided with a decision on his criminal liability in a reasonable period of time. The IACHR considers that the decision of the Constitutional Rights Court regarding the habeas corpus appeal constitutes circumstantial evidence of the unreasonable length of time. Despite this, the first two proceedings lasted two additional years. With regard to the third, as was stated previously, there is no information about its conclusion. As for Mr. Montesinos, the Commission notes that there is nothing in the file indicating that he hindered proceedings or was accountable in any way for their delay. Report No. 40/14, Case 11.438, Merits, Herrera Espinoza et al., Ecuador, July 17, 2014, paragraphs. 215 and 216. Via Judgment of December 16, 1997. See in this respect, I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 44( a). 127 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, paragraph 107; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paragraph 150; and Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, Judgment of January 29, 1997, paragraph 77. 128 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 155. 125 126 23