60 144. The State pointed out in its brief of final arguments that no potentially useful remedy had been filed in the case of the victims who lost their lives, since they were in the hands of criminals and not in those of State authorities. 145. Regarding the victims who survived their captivity, Guatemala claimed that habeas corpus was of no avail since they had been taken before the justice tribunals within legal processes in which all judicial guarantees were respected. 146. Likewise, it alleged that Judge Trejo-Duque was not in a position to evaluate anything which, according to Guatemalan legislation, was not in his possession, in which case he would have been guilty of perverting the course of justice. The State further pointed out that, on resuming his functions after his kidnapping, Judge TrejoDuque discovered new evidence which probably convinced him that he should revoke the detention of the members of the Treasury Police. 147. The State also made mention of the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the case dismissed in the following terms "[w]hat we have here is perhaps an enormous and terrible judicial absurdity, but one that can and will be broken, and remedies are in place to achieve that end." 148. Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides that [e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 149. With regard to that article, the Court has stated that [f]or cases which concern the determination of […] rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, Article 8 does not specify any minimum guarantees similar to those provided in Article 8(2) for criminal proceedings. It does, however, provide for due guarantees; consequently, the individual here also has the right to the fair hearing provided for in criminal cases. (Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (art. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90. Series A No. 11, para. 28). 150. It has been proven that there was widespread fear among those involved in the so-called "white van case", corroborated by the eyewitnesses’ reluctance to testify before the then judge in the case and the failure to conduct a thorough investigation into his kidnapping. The report delivered by experts Anderson (supra, para. 67 (m)), Mayora (supra, para. 67 (j)) and Molina (supra, para. 67 (n)) and Mr. Simon’s testimony (supra, para. 67 (g)) corroborate this assertion. 151. The Court considered that it is neither necessary nor pertinent to examine the possible connection of Judge Trejo-Duque’s kidnapping with the instant Case and the Court has simply noted that the kidnapping was not duly investigated, nor was any decision taken on the suggestion that the judge had been threatened and coerced during his captivity. 152. Likewise, in accordance with the criteria previously established by the Court with regard to the concept of reasonable time in judicial processes (Genie Lacayo Case, Judgment of January 29, 1997, series C No. 30, para.77; Suarez Rosero Case, supra, 71, para.72), the Court is of the view that in the instant Case the proceeding, which is still at the pre-trial ("sumario") stage, has far exceeded the principles of