377. The Court recalls that, in this case, the criminal complaint was filed on June 30, 1997, and it was not until September 13, 1999, that the preliminary hearing of the accused, Quagliato Neto, was held (supra para. 149). Subsequently, on March 16, 2001, the federal judge declared his lack of competence to hear the case and sent the case file to the Pará state jurisdiction. On May 28, 2002, the criminal action against João Luiz Quagliato Neto was declared extinct, and on November 8, 2004, the state judge declared his lack of jurisdiction to hear the case and returned the case file to the federal jurisdiction. During the long periods between these actions no procedures of any procedural relevance were conducted. On September 26, 2006, the Superior Court of Justice determined that the federal jurisdiction had competence in the case and the case file was forwarded to the Marabá Federal Trial Court. Finally, on July 10, 2008, the Federal Public Prosecution Service submitted its final arguments and requested the extinction of the criminal action against Raimundo Alves de Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira. On the same day, the federal judge declared that the criminal action against them had extinguished in application of a particular usage of the statute of limitations (supra paras. 156 and 157). 378. Based on the above, this Court finds that there were delays in the criminal proceedings resulting from the conflicts of competence and the failure of the judicial authorities to act diligently. The Court considers that no reasons have been presented to explain the inaction of the judicial authorities or the delay resulting from the conflicts of competence. Accordingly, the Court considers that the judicial authorities did not ensure, with due diligence, that a reasonable time was respected in the criminal proceedings. 379. Regarding the prescription of the criminal action, the Court observes that the statute of limitations was applied pursuant to the interpretation of the laws of Brazil in force at the time of the facts. Nevertheless, the Court notes that this was decided because “more than 10 years had passed since the complaint had been filed, that the maximum penalty that could be applied was eight years, and that the statute of limitations for the penalty was 12 years, [so that] prescription would not apply only if the accused were sentenced to the maximum penalty.” The passage of time that eventually led to the application of the statute of limitations was the result of the lack of diligence of the Brazilian judicial authorities who were responsible for taking the necessary measures to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible;493 thus, it is a matter that can be attributed to the State. Consequently, the Court considers that the authorities did not exercise due diligence to ensure the advance of the proceedings, and this culminated in the prescription of the criminal action. iv) Effects generated on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings, and impact on his or her rights 380. The Court recalls that, to determine whether the duration of the proceedings is reasonable, the effects of this duration on the legal situation of the person concerned must be taken into account, considering, among other elements, the purpose of the dispute. The Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on a person’s legal situation, the proceedings must advance with greater diligence so that the case is decided promptly.494 381. In this case, the Court notes that a ruling in the criminal proceedings against Raimundo Alves de Rocha, Antônio Alves Vieira and João Luiz Quagliato Neto, would have had an impact on the award of reparations to the workers subjected to conditions of slavery in Hacienda Brasil Verde. Owing to the absence of a ruling in these proceedings, no 493 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lópes, para. 199, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., para. 306. 494 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., para. 155, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., para. 309. 95