49 186. The State argued, regarding procedural actions by the petitioners, that “the documentary evidence in the case file leaves no doubt concerning the relationship between the lengthy procedural periods in the military criminal case and the exercise by the [alleged victims] of their right to defense, particularly through the appeals processes. The number of claims, petitions, submissions and remedies lodged by [the alleged victims] in the general courts, that impeded both the military criminal investigative judges and the [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces] from continuing to process the case, included the lodging of remedies of nullification, claims of unconstitutional actions, releases, statutes of limitations, jurisdiction, self-amnesty, and more, all of which necessarily had an impact on the total amount of time that the military criminal process lasted.” 187. With regard to the conduct of judicial authorities, the State noted, “the public authorities replied to every one of the petitions brought by the accused in the domestic process. The exact dates of the actions show that this is true. In addition, the public officials undertook these actions without undue delay, even though there were no arbitrary time limits.” Finally, regarding the impact on the legal situation of persons involved in the process, the State said, “[t]he judicial process (…) revealed no peculiarities that might oblige public officers to rush through the process with undue speed. (…) Similarly, [the alleged victims] have not shown how the judicial process caused them permanent damage or worsened their legal situation, as they were convicted in every judicial decision.” For all these reasons, they asked the Court to find no violation of articles 8(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention. C.2 Considerations of the Court 188. The concept of a reasonable period of time contemplated in Article 8 of the American Convention is closely linked to the notion of effective, simple and prompt recourse envisaged in Article 25.188 The Court has held that a reasonable period of time should be determined in relation to the duration of the entire procedure, from the first action until the final judgment is handed down, including any appeals that may be filed.189 189. At the same time, in its consistent case law the Court has established that four elements must be considered in order to determine whether this rule is fulfilled in each case: the complexity of the case; the conduct of the judicial authorities; the procedural activity of the interested party,190 and the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved.191 190. In relation to determining the complexity of the case, this Court has taken several criteria into account. These include the complexity of the evidence, the number of parties or the number of victims involved in the proceedings, the time that has elapsed since the violation, the nature of the remedies embodied in the domestic legislation and the context in which the violation occurred.192 Similarly, the European Court has ruled that complexity should be determined by the nature of the charges, the number of accused and the political 188 Cfr. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, par. 155, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, par. 188. 189 Cfr. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, par. 71, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, par. 188. 190 Cfr. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, par. 72, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, par. 189. 191 Cfr. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., par. 155, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, par. 189. 192 Cfr. inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, par. 78, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, par. 190.