Commission observes that in neither in habeas corpus petitions, nor the criminal investigation, nor the special inquiry was an investigative strategy devised for addressing such logical lines of inquiry. On the contrary, the priority remained on the line of inquiry concerning Ms. Hutierrez's supposed romantic liaisons, without compelling objective evidence to support it. It is worth mentioning that officials from San Carlos University said that the only theory investigated by the State was “false and a distraction,” as all Ms. Gutiérrez's documents, including her passport, were found at her home, which meant that she could not have traveled. Indeed, the General Directorate of Migration itself issued a report saying that there was no record of any migratory movements for Ms. Gutiérrez during the relevant period, information that was backed up by the regional offices of the National Institute of Migration of Mexico, which indicated that no entry records for Ms. Gutiérrez were found. 138. The State has not disputed the omission to follow up on the aforementioned lines of inquiry. Nor has it offered any explanation as to why priority was given to the line of inquiry connected with Ms. Gutiérrez's purported romantic liaisons, or the reasons why the lines of inquiry mentioned in the preceding paragraphs were discarded without first being exhausted. 139. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that another component of the breach of the duty to investigate with due diligence in this case has to do with the failure to pursue logical lines of inquiry which, by the standards of the inter-American system, is especially serious since the hypotheses either implicated state agents or were related to the work of human rights defenders. iii) Reasonable period of time 140. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes as one of the elements of a fair trial that tribunals reach a decision on cases submitted for their consideration within a reasonable time. Therefore, a long delay may per se constitute a violation of the principle of due process.187 It is for the State to explain and prove why it has required more time than would be reasonable to deliver final judgment in a specific case.188 In that connection, reasonableness of time must be analyzed with regard to the total duration of the criminal process189 and in the light of the four elements that Court has considered in its case law: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding. 190 141. As far as complexity is concerned, the State merely indicated that the only suspect in Ms. Gutiérrez's disappearance was a fugitive. In that regard, the IACHR considers that for a complexity argument to be valid the State must provide specific information directly connecting the elements of complexity invoked to the delays in the proceeding. That has not happened in this case. Moreover, the Commission notes that Mr. Arancibia’s situation is related to one of the hypotheses as to what happened; however, there is no causal link between his fugitive status and the omission to pursue the other lines of inquiry and gather evidence in connection with those lines of inquiry. The Commission recalls the position of the Court in the sense that a delay in an investigation cannot be justified by the complexity of the matter when possible lines of inquiry exist.191 187 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 85; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 160. 188 par. 142. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111 189 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 129; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 104; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 168; IACHR, Report 77/02, Case 11.506, Merits, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos, Paraguay, December 27, 2002, par. 76. 190 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, par. 164. 191 See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, par. 275. 29