-30121. In conclusion, the Court considers that, with respect to the first period between the committal proceedings and the case being sent to the archive, the State did not violate a reasonable time, as shown by the aforementioned analysis. With regard to the second period that refers to the closing of the case, the Court holds that the State violated a reasonable time, including that which occurred between the request of “desarchivamiento” and the reopening of the case. During this period, the accused was released and nothing was done because the case was closed for more than seven years due to the application of the Amnesty Law, which was later left without effect by the domestic court. Finally, with respect to the third period, from the reopening of the case to the payment by the State of reparations, the Court holds that, in this period of approximately eight years in which various extensions of the procedural dead-lines were granted, the actions of the authorities went beyond the limits of a reasonable time and, therefore, with respect to this period the State violated that principle. 122. Consequently, the Court finds a violation of a reasonable time for a domestic criminal proceedings against Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo, recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to to Mr. Bejarano Laura, Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza, Lucila Arrieta Bellena, Santiago Pérez Vera and Nieves Emigdia Chávez Rojas. B.2. The lack of due diligence in the investigation 123. The Court notes that the Commission and the representatives argued that the investigation of the incident did not comply with the requirements of due diligence for the following reasons: i) the Army did not place at the disposal of the civil authorities the rifle that the accused fired nor the rifles belonging to the other members of the patrol for later procedures; ii) it is not shown that the prosecutor in charge of the case requested the Army to turn over custody of those arms, and iii) the prosecutor did not order additional expert examinations after being informed of the incident; for example, a parafin test for all of the patrol members, the reconstruction of the scene of the crime or the making of a forensic planimetry. 124. The Court recalls that a State’s obligation to investigate consists mainly in determining responsibilities and, if applicable, in prosecuting and convicting. The Court also reiterates that that obligation is a matter of means and conduct and that the mere fact that the investigation did not produce a satisfactory result is not a failure to comply. Additionally, the procedures involved in the investigation of the incident must be examined as a whole and it is not the task of the Court, in principle, to rule on the appropriateness of the investigative measures.124 125. In the present case, the investigation of the incident resulted in the recuperation of certain evidence; the determination of what happened, and the identification of the person responsible. The Court considers that it was not proved that the flaws alleged by the representatives and the Commssion, in relation to the totality of the procedures carried out by the State, were a deciding factor in the clarification of the circumstances of the case or in the final result of the proceedings against the perpetrator of the incident.125 126. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is not responsible for the violation of judicial guarantees and of judicial protection due to a lack of due diligence in investigating the incident related to the present case. Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 17, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 153. 124 125 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 167.