258. The Commission first observes that the State has not offered any pleadings as to the way in which this case could have involved a degree of complexity to justify the process lasting for more than six years, including two criminal trials, when the investigation phase concluded only months after opening and the rest of the process took place in the courts. 259. As far as the authorities’ actions, the Commission stands by the findings of the previous section as far as the failure to comply with the duty to investigate with due diligence. Likewise, the Commission highlights that once the investigation ran its course, the court activity was notably slow, causing an unjustified delay in the final resolution of the case on the domestic level. As has been established, the criminal case file was examined by multiple judges, and the corresponding trial hearings were deferred multiple times. Contrary to the State’s argument and as indicated in the proven facts, these delays were not due to Linda Loaiza López’s health situation but largely owing to circumstances attributable to the State. 260. With regard to the procedural activity of the affected party and its impact on the duration of the proceeding, the Commission reiterates the considerations on the scope of the State’s reinforced duty in response to the facts perpetrated against Linda Loaiza López and in light of her special situation of vulnerability as a woman victim of violence, including sexual violence. Likewise, Linda Loaiza López’s participation at all stages of the process has been consistent, as has her determination to move the case forward and take every action available to her to obtain justice. 261. Taking these elements into account, the Commission finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate within a reasonable period of time. 2.2.3. Conclusion 262. Based on everything noted thus far, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate with due diligence in: i) the omissions in the initial identification and execution of steps taken given that the case was one of violence against women, including sexual violence; ; ii) the authorities’ actions and omissions throughout the investigation; and iii) the failure to investigate alleged irregularities throughout the investigation and criminal process, as well as the threats and harassment reported by Linda Loaiza López and her family. The Commission thus concludes that the Venezuelan State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate within a reasonable period of time. 263. Consequently, the Commission finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, with regard to Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as for the violation of its duty to investigate acts of torture and violence against women, established respectively in articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, all to the detriment of Linda Loaiza López. 264. Likewise, taking into account the denunciation of the American Convention by the Venezuelan State, which came into force on September 10, 2013, and given the continuity of the situation of impunity in regards to the sexual violence suffered by Linda Loaiza López, the IACHR also declares that the State of Venezuela continues to violate the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article XVIII of the American Declaration to the detriment of Ms. López.