372. This Court has taken into account different criteria to determine the complexity of a proceeding. These include the complexity of the evidence, the plurality of the procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time that has passed since the violation, the characteristics of the remedy established in domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred.488 373. The Court observes that, in this case, the characteristics of the proceedings were not particularly complex. The complaints filed against Raimundo Alves de Rocha, Antônio Alves Vieira and João Luiz Quagliato Neto were based on the April 1997 inspection at Hacienda Brasil Verde, and the Federal Public Prosecution Service had sufficient information to file the complaints. Also, the plurality of procedural subjects did not represent a problem as they were a specific, closed group. The Court does not find any particular reasons that could substantiate a special complexity of the case that would justify the proceedings lasting more than 10 years. ii) Procedural activity of the interested party 374. In this case, the Court finds no evidence that would allow it to infer that there had been any type of conduct or action by the interested parties that would have retarded the proceedings. To the contrary, the Court notes that the workers found during the 1997 inspection, which originated the criminal complaint of June 1997, were unable to take part in the proceedings held for the facts verified in Hacienda Brasil Verde. 375. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in relation to the exercise of the right to judicial guarantees recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention, the Court has established, inter alia, that “it is necessary to comply with all the requirements that protect, ensure or assert the ownership or exercise of a right; that is, the conditions that must be met to ensure the adequate representation or control of the interests or the claims of those whose rights or obligations are subject to judicial consideration.”489 376. The Court also recalls that, according to the right recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, States have the obligation to ensure the right of the victims or their next of kin to participate in all stages of proceedings that concern them so that they may make proposals, receive information, provide evidence, submit arguments and, in sum, assert their rights.490 The purpose of this participation should be access to justice, to know the truth about what occurred, and to obtain fair reparation.491 However, the effective search for the truth corresponds to the State and does not depend on the procedural initiative of the victim or the next of kin, or on the contribution of probative elements by private individuals.492 In this case, the Federal Public Prosecution Service was in charge of the criminal action, because the crime was subject exclusively to a “public criminal action.” iii) Conduct of the judicial authorities Cf. inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma, para. 179. 488 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 28, and Case of J, para. 258. 489 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 246, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 193. 490 491 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., para. 233, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 193. 492 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 193. 94