-2594. The State also pointed out that the perpetrator of the incident was a member of the Army who accidentally shot the victims and that the Public Ministry decided to try or denounce only that individual. In addition, since the complaint did not include other persons allegedly responsible, they could not be brought before the National Criminal Chamber. The State argued that the sentence imposed on the accused was the result of careful deliberation by the judicial authorities and, with respect to serving the full sentence, it stated that the Code of Criminal Implementation governs compliance of the prison sentence and, pursuant to its Article 42(3), a possible prison benefit is limited freedom and, therefore, the granting of this benefit does not infringe any right recognized in the American Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 95. The Court has held that the State has the obligation to provide effective legal recourses to all persons who allege that they are a victim of a human rights violation (Article 25), recourses that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1), all part of the States’ general obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons who are subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1).114 96. The Commission and the representatives allege that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention for the following reasons: a) the lack of a reasonable time with regard to the domestic proceedings against the perpetrator; b) the lack of due diligence in the investigations; c) closing the case by applying the amnesty law; d) the submission of the case to the military jurisdiction; e) the lack of proportionality of the sentence imposed on the accused; f) the failure to serve the full sentence; g) the impossibility of challenging the sentence; h) the limitation in the procedural laws on the proportionality of the sentences by the type of incident found in the present case, and i) the failure to prosecute other persons who might be responsible for the incident. 97. The Court will first analyze the arguments on the alleged lack of a reasonable time with regard to the domestic proceedings against the perpetrator of the incident; then analyze the lack of due diligence in the investigation, and finally it will offer an over-all evaluation of the arguments referred to in c) to i). B.1. The lack of a reasonable time with regard to the domestic proceedings 98. The Court has stated that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention should be analyzed in relation to the total length of the proceedings, including the definitive sentence.115 In addition, the period to implement the sentence to obtain the full payment of the compensation should also be taken into account in analyzing the reasonable time since civil redress was part of the criminal process of the perpetrator.116 99. The Court notes that the length of the criminal proceedings against Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo was approximately 16 years and two months, computed from the beginning of the proceedings on November 2, 1994 to the sentencing on January 6, 2011. The Court also notes Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91 and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 97. 114 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71 and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 217. 115 Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina, para. 151. Regarding the present case, see: Judgment of the National Criminal Chamber in case file N° 13-06 of July 23, 2008 (evidence file, folios 55 to 65). 116