171. On their behalf, the representatives noted that “there was a series of precautionary decisions on the constitutional challenge of said Article as of 4 years ago, [but that] the Supreme Tribunal […] ignored [them], […] permitting their arbitrary application and ratif[ying] their compatibility with the Constitution […] and with Article 23(2) of the American Convention.” In this regard, they considered it “of great importance to highlight that, after more than 2 years since the filing of the appeal for annulment of Article 105 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller […] and of the actions that […] put in place the political disqualification, without obtaining a ruling by the Constitutional Chamber […],[…he] was informed unofficially that he was to appear at a hearing to listen to the parties […], namely, an untimely summons.” Subsequently, “three working days after having celebrated the hearing, the judgment 1266 of August 6, 2008, was rendered, where the final violation of [Mr. López Mendoza’s] rights was materialized, where the magistrates had to modify years of jurisprudence and pacific constitutional doctrine.” 172. In regard to the motion for annulment and the constitutional challenge of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF, the State noted the following: i) “[i]n regards to the complexity of the case, […] it was necessary to take into consideration factors such as the high level of difficulty associated with the resolution of a particularly complicated claim, not only because of the nature of the case, but also because of the amount of petitions filed against the mentioned Article that were joined into one.” Moreover, “it corresponded to the Constitutional Chamber […], to decide on the constitutionality of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF, a task that is even more complex in the case of public officials in popular elections, as is the case of [Mr.] López Mendoza,” ii) “[i]n regard to the procedural activity of the interested parties, it was noted that while these were met in a timely manner, the procedural burdens throughout the procedural iter, it is clear from the actions in the respective case file, that others sought to intervene in the proceeding, or that due to the nature of the matter at hand, the judicial body ordered joinder of claims, which no doubt led to its justified lengthening,” and iii) as it pertains to the activity of the authorities, it noted that it "maintained a diligent attitude regarding [the] processing of the case, staying active at all times, especially taking into consideration the fact that these were cases that were in constant motion, to the point that from one procedural action to another not much time passed.” 173. In this way, the State concluded that “while there were some delays in the processing of the appeal filed by [Mr.]López Mendoza, this is fully justified, not only due to the joinder of those interested parties that filed before the court, but also due to the great activity carried out for the resolution.” 3.2.2. Considerations of the Court 174. As was established in the pleadings of the parties, the constitutional challenge brought by the alleged victim of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF was resolved after 2 years and 2 months. In order to determine whether this is a reasonable time, the Court will again, pursuant to its jurisprudence, take into account i) the complexity of the case, ii) the procedural actions of the interested parties; iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and iv) the effect generated on the legal status of the person involved in the proceeding (supra para. 162). i. Complexity 175. The State indicated that it involves a "case that is particularly difficulty," "due to the nature of the case"; "due to the number of claims filed [and joined in a single case]," 67