39 135. Regarding the second element to be considered, the Court observes that the crime of murder should be investigated ex officio by the State, as the State itself has explained and in accordance with domestic legislation (supra paras. 106 and 119) and, at no time, did the procedural activity of Mr. Garibaldi’s next of kin obstruct the investigation. 136. Regarding the conduct of the responsible authorities, the Court has already described the authorities' delay in taking the testimony of the accused and the witnesses, as in the case of the statements of Morival Favoreto, Eduardo Minutoli Junior and Flair Carrilho; in complying with the measures ordered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the chiefs of police, as in the case of the measures to identify specific vehicles and providing other evidence to the case file, such as the expert appraisal of the seized weapon and clarification of its whereabouts. In addition, on at least five occasions during the Investigation, periods of time ranging from three months to more than one year and six months elapsed without any substantial activity or the production of evidence, beyond the mere request or repetition of a request to take some measure (supra paras. 84 to 86, 89, 92, and 95 to 97). For example, from June 2, 2000, to July 3, 2001, the only actions in the file were three requests for an extension of the time frame for concluding the Investigation and the affirmative responses, and two reiterations of requests for evidence (supra para. 89). Similarly, following the reception of the testimonial statement of Eduardo Minutoli Junior on July 5, 2001, no measure was taken until September 12, 2002, other than requesting the statement of Dr. Flair Carrillo (supra paras. 91 and 92). After this doctor’s testimony had finally been received on September 13, 2002, and up until the request to conclude the Investigation on May 12, 2004, the only action taken to advance the Investigation was the repetition of the request to forward the seized weapon, which finally received a reply on March 25, 2004 (supra paras. 94 to 96). Lastly, throughout the almost six years that the Investigation lasted, extensions of the time frame for conducting it were requested and granted on 13 occasions. Consequently, considering the time from December 10, 1998, when the Investigation was opened until the order to close it in May 2004, the Court finds that this procedure lasted the equivalent of more than 60 times the legal term of 30 days established in article 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.127 137. Brazil alleged that the duration of the investigation was due to the legal holidays of some public officials, to measures being taken in other jurisdictions, and to the accumulation of procedures for which the state authorities were responsible. The Court recalls, as it has already established in this judgment, that the State has an international obligation to investigate facts such as those of the instant case and, therefore, it cannot allege domestic obstacles, such as the lack of infrastructure or personnel to conduct the investigative procedures, to exempt itself from an international obligation. 138. Regarding the fourth element, the Court has said that, in order to determine the reasonableness of the duration, the effect of the length of the procedure on the legal situation of the person involved must be taken into account considering, among other elements, the matter that is the object of the dispute. Thus, the Court has established that if the passage of time has a relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual, the procedure should progress more rapidly in order to resolve the case as soon as possible.128 127 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 107, folio 2340. Art. 10. The investigation shall conclude within 10 days if the accused has been detained in flagrante delicto, or was in preventive detention, in that hypothesis, to be calculated from the day on which the arrest warrant was executed, or within 30 days, if the accused is at liberty, with or without bail. […] § 3 Should the facts be difficult to clarify, and the accused is at liberty, the authority may request the judge to return the case file, for further measures, to be taken within the time limit stipulated by the judge. 128 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 95, para. 155, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 115.