37 the appeal for legal protection to comply with the objectives for which it was created had not been removed. 124. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that, within the framework of the current Guatemalan legislation, in the instant case the appeal for legal protection has been transformed into a means to delay and hinder the judicial process, and into a factor for impunity. Consequently, this Court believes that in the instant case the State violated the rights to a fair trial and right to judicial protection, which constitute the victims’ access to justice, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and also failed to comply with the provisions contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. B) Delay and Inapplicability of the Law of National Reconciliation 125. The Commission and the representatives concur in indicating that the possible application of the LRN to the instant case would imply perpetrating impunity. They also criticized the excessive delay in the process to decide on the applicability of this Law. The State did not comment on this matter in its answer to the application. However, in its brief on final arguments, it provided additional information on the realm of the application of the LRN, Decree No. 145-96 of the Congress of the Republic. In this section the State concluded that “until now there is no resolution that has granted applied amnesty to accused military for events committed during the armed conflict, on the contrary when the granting of amnesty was requested based [on] the Law of National Reconciliation, all requests have been declared inadmissible.” 126. As previously mentioned (supra para. 95), the procedure to decide on the applicability of the LRN began on June 25, 2002. This law grants a term of ten days, extendable by another ten days if a hearing is held, to rule on the applicability of the extinction of criminal liability. If an appeal is requested before the Supreme Court of Justice, the latter shall have a term of five days to resolve this remedy, and the decision is non-appealable130. This proceeding was suspended since February 17, 2003, awaiting a decision on the constitutional motion filed by one of the accused. Consequently, the excessive delay by the judicial authorities in resolving the applicability of the LRN is evident, which has also delayed the criminal proceeding that has already extended beyond eight years. 127. On the other hand, the excessive time that the State has used to decide on the applicability of the extinction of criminal liability has created a situation of juridical uncertainty for the case, as well as for the victims. Although the State assured in a public hearing and in its final arguments that, to date, no amnesty has been granted in an unlawful manner in any case processed in Guatemala, it is clear that the formal object of the process established in the LRN is precisely deciding on the possible application of this figure131. 128. It is worth noting that although the Las Dos Erres Massacre occurred within the context of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala, in the internal jurisdiction it has been catalogued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office as a murder. Additionally, on 130 Cf. Article 11 of the LRN. 131 However, the representatives indicated that in December 2007, when hearing the appeal for legal protection filed by one of the accused in the case for violations perpetrated in the Embassy of Spain in 1980 against Guatemalan and Spanish citizens, the Constitutional Court decided to grant the appeal, turning down by the request for extradition made by Spain, and annulling the provisional arrest warrants that had been handed down. Cf. Constitutional Court of Guatemala, Judgment of December 12, 2007, File 3380-2007 (Appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 43, fs. 11785 to 11847).