B. The State 31. The State contends that the instant petition should be declared inadmissible because there is yet no final judgment in the investigation regarding possible negligent homicide of the alleged victim; the available domestic remedies in the Chilean legal system cannot be reasonably considered to have been exhausted. It goes on to say that the petition should also be declared inadmissible because it is manifestly groundless. 32. In its response to the petition, the State maintains, with respect to the lack of a reasonable exhaustion of domestic remedies, that “the procedure followed by the Primer Juzgado de Letras de Puente Alto [First Court of Puente Alto] is still in the investigation stage.” Thus, the State emphasizes that the investigative process has not been exhausted and that even less so can it be said that domestic remedies have been exhausted; hence the petition is inadmissible. The State also maintains that the petitioners have not provided evidence to prove that they are in a condition of, or similar to, indigence. 33. Regarding the characterization of possible human rights violations regarding the facts alleged in the petition, the State contends that it has fully complied with the provisions of article 8 of the Convention, since there has been “a complex investigation, before a Court of the Republic with a specialized jurisdiction established by law, and where the guarantees of impartiality and independence are fully recognized and operational.” 34. The State explains that the guarantee of a reasonable time period needs to be understood in the light of the circumstances of each particular case, of the topic’s complexity, and the party’s and the court’s actions. In this regard, considering that the investigation of a possible negligent homicide resulting from negligent medical practice requires that the judge be assisted by expert witnesses, and presents its own difficulties with respect to the gathering of sufficient evidence, the complexity of the case justifies an apparent delay in the administration of justice. 35. In addition, it is the opinion of the State that in the instant case the requirement of diligence on the part of the plaintiff is not fulfilled, considering that more than nine months passed between the death of the alleged victim and the lodging of the complaint. Moreover, although the complaint was filed by a free legal service, the petitioners 9