89. The State also argued that Mr. Cortez was familiar with “the proceedings” and the charges brought against him, 81 and that he “always” had access to legal assistance during both the military and civilian proceedings. 82 90. Moreover, it denied having failed to process the case within a reasonable timeframe. It noted in this regard that in the criminal proceedings “there is no evidence of irregular actions on the part of the judges who heard the case.” It added that the fact that “the criminal case began in a military court and was later transferred to a regular court” should be taken into consideration. It argued that the reasonableness of the timeframe “should be analyzed on the basis of the applicant's procedural actions, which were practically nonexistent in the regular courts.” The criminal trial was declared expired under the statute of limitations by the authorities “with no action having been taken by Mr. Cortez, despite his alleged suffering due to the length of the trial.” 83 B. Considerations of the Court 91. The Court has stated that when a military court takes jurisdiction over a matter that regular courts should hear, the right to a hearing by a competent judge and, a fortiori, the right to due process are violated. 84 92. The facts of this case show that Mr. Cortez was subjected to a criminal trial in a military court beginning in 1997. However, that case was declared invalid on November 12, 1999, due to the military court's lack of jurisdiction to try Mr. Cortez, a civilian (supra para. 59). This Court is in agreement with that ruling of invalidity because there was no legal harm of a military nature that could justify military prosecution, given that Mr. Cortez was a civilian. The Court recalls that, by virtue of the principle of complementarity, and pursuant to the examination of the particular circumstances of a case, when the State has halted the measure or situation that gave rise to its international responsibility and has addressed, remedied, or made compensation for those violations, it is not appropriate for the Court to declare that responsibility. 85 This Court holds that the military court's declaration of its case as invalid rendered devoid of effect any situations that, by virtue of their connection to his procedural guarantees in that case or to potential formal or legal effects of the case, could have caused Mr. Cortez harm. 93. Accordingly, the Court notes that it is unnecessary to examine here the various violations of the rights to judicial guarantees, recognized in Article 8 of the American 81 To support this assertion, it stated that during the July 1997 detention, Mr. Cortez was shown an order informing him of the charges and also that Mr. Cortez was informed of the report about the theft of an airplane (supra para. 43). 82 The State even included the names of the attorneys involved. 83 The State argued that “if Mr. Cortez Espinoza felt harmed by a supposedly unjustified delay in the resolution of the case, he could well have filed a disqualification action against the trial judge, and even an action for damages.” 84 Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128, and Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 151. 85 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, paras. 97 and 115, Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 75, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 82. Cf., similarly, Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 33; Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, supra, para. 171; Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 137; Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, paras. 92–96; Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 388; and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, paras. 90 and 91. 21