nature, which required the parties to appear for a special hearing before the judicial organ, which based on its powers had to rule expressly on each one so as to be able to go forward and resolve the underlying controversy, which translated into a judicial delay that was provoked. In this sense, the State indicated that in five of the six proceedings (Gader, Guaglio, Street Lamps, Mendieta, and Mallasa), the various judges who heard the request to extinguish the criminal action filed by Ms. Andrade and other of the co-accused ruled that it was clear that the delay was due to the conduct of the defendants and/or their attorneys, as well as the complexity of the case and the plurality of persons on trial. As regards the Esin case, the State indicated that it was ordered that the criminal complaint be dismissed, and the record was archived at the beginning of the process, thus there was no violation of the right to be tried in a reasonable time. 288. The Commission observes that the reasonableness of the time should be weighed in relation to the total duration of the criminal proceeding. In criminal matters this time begins when the first procedural act is filed directed against a given person as one considered likely responsible for a certain offense and ends with the final and firm judgment is handed down.311 289. Therefore, according to the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Commission will take into consideration, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the three elements that it has taken into account in its consistent case-law, namely: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (c) the procedural activity of the person concerned312, in each of the proceedings. 1. Gader Case 290. In the criminal proceeding known as Gader, the first act proceeding against Ms. Andrade Salmón occurred on April 26, 2000, when the office of the prosecutor took the informational statement from Ms. Andrade Salmón and informed her that she had 48 hours to present evidence of her innocence. The Commission notes that while the preliminary dismissal of the charges was issued in 2007 due to lack of sufficient indicia of guilt, the definitive dismissal of the charges against Ms. Andrade Salmón occurred on December 15, 2011, since the municipality of La Paz appealed the dismissal and subsequently sought to reopen the proceeding. The Commission notes that the total duration of the proceeding was 11 years and 8 months. 291. As regards the appeal and request to reopen the proceeding filed by the municipality against the preliminary dismissal of the charges against Ms. Andrade Salmón, the State indicated that Law No. 1178 and provisions consistent with it establish the obligation of public servants to pursue to their conclusion the proceedings initiated, exhausting all possibilities provided by law, thus based on the likelihood that Ms. Andrade committed crimes of public corruption, the duty of the municipal government of La Paz and the Public Prosecutor’s Office to pursue before the competent judicial authorities the determination as to whether she was criminally liable persisted. Accordingly, the State alleges that according to Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1972, applicable to the criminal proceedings involving Ms. Andrade, when dismissal is preliminary, the plaintiff or the prosecutor may reopen the proceeding just once, within one year counted from the date on which this decision was final. It indicated that if in this second proceeding charges against the accused are dismissed once again, the plaintiff or complainant will answer for the damages caused. The State indicated that this procedural decision cannot be considered an action in violation of the rights of the alleged victim. 292. As regards the complexity of the matter, the Commission notes that according to the facts proven, the judge’s final decision in the investigative proceeding of January 18, 2007, in which the preliminary dismissal was decreed, determined that Ms. Andrade 311 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168. 312 IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11,506), December 27, 2002, para. 76. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez, para. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, para. 166; and Case of Acosta Calderón, para. 105; UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, para. 35.