b.2.1 Regarding the 4,090 workers 89. The Court has noted that an evaluation of a reasonable time must be examined in each specific case relative to the total duration of the proceedings, which also includes the execution of the final judgment. This examination should consider four elements: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the impairment of the legal situation of the individual involved in the proceedings. The Court recalls that the State has the obligation to justify, on the basis of those criteria, why the period that has elapsed to process a case was necessary. Otherwise, the Court has broad powers to make its own analysis of the matter. 96 90. The analysis of this section will center on evaluating, on the basis of those four elements, the period from the adoption of the decision of February 12,1992 until December 2017, when the State made full payment to all of the workers of a total of USD 44,060,949.65. 91. The Court has taken into account different criteria to determine the complexity of the issue, such as the complexity of the evidence, the number of persons involved or the number of victims, the time elapsed from the violation, the characteristics of the remedy set forth in the domestic legislation and the context in which the violation occurred. 97 In this case, the Court understands that the number of victims who are affected by the delay in the execution of the decision of February 12 is more than 4,000, which gives a certain complexity to the matter in that it required individual calculations and the itemization of the amounts owed. 92. To determine whether a period is reasonable, the Court has taken into consideration whether the procedural conduct of the claimant in seeking justice has contributed to some degree to unduly prolonging the length of the process. 98 The Court does not find any activity by the workers that impeded the proceedings, but rather the opposite. The Court observes that, by the year 2003, calculations had not been made to comply with the payments established in the decision of February 12, 1991. The Court notes that the decision that favored the workers referred to FEMAPOR as a litigating party and, therefore, it did not individualize all the members of the Association. Thus, it was not until the Final Report of the Multisectoral Commission in 2003 that established the relationship of the beneficiaries, 99 which was approved by the Sixth Court on August 20, 2003, notwithstanding that the workers’ statements were presented on January 10, 1995. 100 After the judicial approval, the State authorized in June 2004, by Law 28,254, the gradual payment of the amounts owed. This phase, amounting to USD 44,060,949.65, was completed in 2017; in other words, thirteen years after the payments were initiated. The Court notes that about 25 years had elapsed from the time of the decision of February 12, 1991 until full payment. Although the Court understands the budgetary difficulties involved in the payment of large sums of money and in the large number of claimants, the period elapsed in the present case is clearly incompatible with a reasonable time. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131. 97 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, footnote 207. 98 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, footnote 208. 99 Cf. Final Report of the Commission created by Supreme Decree 078-2003-EF, of November 20, 2003. Conclusion 5 (evidence file, f. 46819). 100 Cf. Final Report of the Commission created by Supreme Decree 078-2003-EF, of November 20, 2003, Conclusion 5 (evidence file, f. 46819). 96 24