74 into account to establish whether reasonable time has been breached are found, i.e. those regarding the complexity of the case, behavior of the authorities, and behavior of the interested party.145 130. As regards the complexity of the case, first of all we should underline that the Court has corroborated that the sub judice case is a proceeding before the Justice of the Peace of Colomoncagua and the Second Court of First Instance of Intibucá that began on July 22, 1992, and in January 2003 it was in the stage of preliminary proceedings (supra 70.21 and 70.34). In other words, after more than ten years, despite the fact that according to the statements of witness Leonel Casco and expert opinion Héctor Fortín, this stage should not last more than three months according to domestic legislation. The files supplied in this case show that testimony was received from various witnesses, including the next of kin, in 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1998 (supra 70.23, 70.24 and 70.26). In other words, the judicial authority received various evidence for approximately 6 years, with the aim of identifying those allegedly responsible for the murder of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Even if this were a complex case regarding the merits, the domestic courts must act with due diligence to decide on hearing of the case.146 In the case under discussion, there has been no complexity; instead, the judicial authorities have incurred unnecessary delays, as evidence was received from 1992 to 1998, with some protracted periods of inactivity (between 1993 and 1994, and in 1997). The commitment order against Ángel Belisario Hernández González was issued in October, 1998, and the proceeding was suspended from July 1, 1999 to November, 2001, because the accused had not been captured and Honduran legislation provided that the file should be shelved until the accused was captured. As of February, 2002, there were arrest warrants against Ángel Belisario Hernández González, and he was captured on January 17, 2003, despite the fact that he appeared in the proceeding by means of a legal representative in April, 2002 (supra 70.33 and 70.34). 131. With respect to the behavior of the authorities, first of all we must underline that actions or omissions that abridge fundamental rights may be committed by any public authority, whether the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judiciary, as has been established in the case law of this Court.147 Due to the above, in the sub judice case regarding the period from 1992 to 2001 it is necessary to weigh not only what occurred in the proceeding before the Justice of the Peace of Colomoncagua and the Second Court of First Instance of Intibucá, but all processes or procedures that in one way or another had a bearing on this case and make it possible to glimpse the behavior of the public authorities: a) it should be underlined that while the respective courts did not know the address of the possible accused since March 16, 1995, they did not make efforts to locate said person despite knowing that he was an agent of the State, until September 29, 1998, the date on which the Second Court of First Instance of Intibucá asked the director of the oversight board of the national police and the general commander of the armed forces to place Ángel 145 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 143; Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 93; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 109, para. 152. 146 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Baraona judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 122, para. 50. 147 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 163; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, para. 154; Ivcher Bronstein Case, supra note 136, para. 168; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 178.