65 246. On the other hand, on January 7, 2002 the Community requested the INA affectation through expropriation of the 22 blocks, recommending that the INA declare the request for expropriation admissible. On July 15, 2003 that entity declared the start of the affectation process admissible. The investigations determined that the land is of a private legal nature, located within the area of the Municipality of Tela, and it is currently not being exploited because it is in conflict (supra para. 81). Similarly, on September 6, 2002 the Community filed an administrative complaint of nullity before the Municipality of Tela regarding the agreement through which the Municipal Corporation assigned the 22 blocks to the Union (supra para. 82). In this sense, the State argued that up to this date the domestic procedure has not been exhausted by the petitioners, since they have pending the writ of protection against the resolution of the National Agrarian Council or, accepting this resolution, they can request the nullity of the title issued by the Mayor’s Office of Tela to its Union. The Court does not have updated information regarding this last administrative procedure started approximately 13 years ago. 247. Likewise, the Community also denounced the facts of the sale to the company IDETRISA of lands titled in guarantee of occupation in favor of the Community, before the National Human Rights Commissioner in the year 2001, as well as the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation (supra para. 76). The Court does not have greater information regarding these claims 14 years after they were denounced. 248. Concerning the administrative actions involved in the territorial dispute between the company MACERICA, on one hand, and the Community, on the other, the Court verifies that on May 25, 1984 the INA issued a Report in which it boasted that the land of Barra del Río Plátano was within the State’s domain, and during the proceedings it was verified that the land requested by the Community was located within the urban perimeter of the Municipality of Tela, by virtue of the resolution adopted by the INA on April 24, 1989, of which 44 hectares had been sold to a company (supra para. 74). The National Comptroller’s Office started an investigation on the legality of the sales, reason for which in 1996 the INA decided to suspend the procedure of the request for allocation in favor of the Community (supra para. 67), until the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation and the National Comptroller could jointly analyze and define the situation in question. The Court does not have updated information regarding this procedure even 19 years after it was suspended. 249. Moreover, the Court verifies that several criminal and administrative proceedings did not offer the petitioners a procedural response after more than 13 years (administrative claim for nullity of September 6, 2002, supra para. 82); 14 years (claim before the National Human Rights Commissioner in 2001, supra para. 76); 17 years (claim against abuse of authority before the Office of Criminal Investigation of February 4, 1998, supra para. 80), and 19 years (start of the investigation by the National Comptroller’s Office in 1996, supra para. 67) since they were started or since there was information on the last procedural action. 250. The Court reiterates its case law that states that lack of reasonability in the time it takes to carry out a proceeding constitutes, in principle, a violation of judicial guarantees. This Court has consistently taken into consideration four elements to determine whether the time has been reasonable: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the actions of the judicial authorities, and iv) the effects on the legal situation of the persons involved in the proceedings.235 251. In this case, the Court considers that the lack of procedural response from the State during those periods of time cannot be justified by the complexity of the case or the activity Cfr. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 246. 235