168. Furthermore, due to appeals filed from February 2021 to present (some nine months) by the only survivor of the three accused persons, there remains pending the resolution of the objection of unconstitutionality. The Court has not been informed to the contrary. 169. Thus, it can be said, in the first place, that the Court recognizes that, in the context of the guarantee of due process set out in Article 8 of the American Convention, those accused of a crime have the possibility of using, in defense of their rights, the appeals provided by the legal order. 170. The judicial authorities, notwithstanding their duty to respect the guarantees of the accused, must seek to ensure that the cases are handled within a reasonable time, taking into consideration the speed required by the nature of the cases. The cases that are here being examined deal with serious violations of human rights that occurred more than 44 years ago. In this context, it is necessary, in order to safeguard the processes, that the judicial bodies resolve with all due speed the matters that are brought before them. These bodies must apply the measures that the legal order provides to avoid undue delays and tactics of litigation or defense made recklessly, maliciously or in bad faith.206 171. Taking into account the foregoing and the facts already established, the Court concludes that the judicial authorities, with respect to the actions related to the investigation and to the criminal proceedings regarding the deaths of the three women, did not conduct them diligently to avoid those delays. This is especially important in view of the time that elapsed since the incident, its seriousness, the delays during several years, and the advanced age of the persons possibly responsible, as well as that of the next of kin of the victims, which, in turn, contributed to the harm. All of this, in turn, contributed to the detriment of the reasonability of the time (infra para. 173). B.2.3 Failure to observe a reasonable time 172. The right to access to justice presupposes that a controversy is resolved within a reasonable time, since a prolonged delay may become, per se, a violation of judicial guarantees.207 173. More than 44 years have elapsed since the forced disappearances of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú and more than 36 years since the inquiry into the deaths of Ms. Raggio, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Maidanik, counting from the date that Uruguay accepted the Court’s jurisdiction (supra para. 12). Those periods surpass the parameters of reasonability.208 The longest delays were produced during various years before 2006 and were due to the application of the Expiry Law. The lack of diligence to avoid delays caused by the abusive filings of judicial appeals in the investigation into the deaths of the three women was also an important factor in the delay. The State affirmed, without providing details, that its legal order has the necessary tools to detect abuses of law (infra para. 244). 206 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 145 and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, para. 185. 207 The Court has held that it is the State’s responsibility to justify why it has needed the time elapsed to process a case; otherwise, the Court has broad powers to make its own analysis of the matter (cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 156 and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, para. 142). Uruguay has not offered a satisfactory explanation on the matter. 208 46