authorities were given notice of a situation of risk to Mr. González.170 Even if the reopening of the investigation in 2004 could have been seen as an element in this sense, two more years elapsed without news of acts that could have been considered a risk. 183. Given the above (supra para. 177), in order to determine State responsibility for the failure to prevent violations of the rights to personal integrity and to life, it must be demonstrated that the State authorities knew, or should have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to those rights. This cannot be considered proved in this case and, thus, it cannot be concluded that the State has failed to observe its obligations in relation to the rights to personal liberty and to life of Olimpiades González. 184. Thus, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of the rights to life and to personal liberty, recognized, respectively, in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights. B.2 Right to judicial guarantees 185. The Court has held that a prolonged delay in a proceeding may be, in and of itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.171 The evaluation of a reasonable time should be analyzed in each case, in relation to the total length of the proceeding, from the first procedural act to the final sentence, including any appeals that might be filed.”172 186. The investigation into the death of Olimpiades González began on December 11, 2006, the day of his death. In March 2007, various investigative steps were taken (supra para. 80). According to information provided by the State, the investigation is still open because the person allegedly responsible for the homicide is a fugitive from justice. 187. The Court notes that more than 15 years have elapsed since the beginning of the investigation without it having concluded. In view of this delay that at first glance appears excessive, the State has not provided information that would demonstrate that it is acting diligently. Nothing in the factual framework, nor in the arguments of the State, details the steps of the investigation that would permit an evaluation of its status. The information that the alleged perpetrator is a fugitive from justice; that information has been collected on his migratory movements, and that the trial court requested his arrest from the International Organization of Criminal Police (INTERPOL) are not sufficient to conclude that the State has acted properly with respect to the right of victims to judicial action within a reasonable time. Other than the actions to locate and arrest the fugitive, the State has not indicated actions that were directed opportunely to locate the alleged perpetrator so that he could be prosecuted.173 The references made by Belkis González with respect to what occurred on December 21, 2004 were not precise enough to prove that the State was aware of a situation of an attack or risk on that date (supra para. 77). In addition, it should be noted that, in any case, the reference made by Belkis González refers to circumstances some two years before the death of Olimpiades González. 170 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 145 and Case of Ríos Avalos and another v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 166. 171 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, para. 71 and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, para. 166. 172 The expert Magaly Mercedes Vázquez González related that “despite eyewitnesses to the event who pointed out H.F. as the alleged perpetrator, barely three […] months after the homicide the prosecutor ordered various steps pertaining to the investigation.” The expert concluded that, considering the time that had elapsed 173 46