have all necessary steps taken to learn the truth about what happened and to investigate, prosecute, and punish, as appropriate, those eventually found responsible. 178 In addition, a significant delay in the proceedings can in itself constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 179 107. Furthermore, the Court has established that the timeframe must be analyzed separately for each specific case in terms of the total duration of the proceedings, which could also include enforcement of the final judgment. Moreover, it has held that four elements must be examined to know whether the guarantee of a reasonable time has been observed, namely: (a) the complexity of the matter; 180 (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; 181 (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; 182 and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the alleged victim. 183 The Court recalls that it is the State’s responsibility to justify, based on these criteria, why it required the time that passed to process the case and that if it fails to do so, the Court has broad powers to form its own opinion in this regard. 184 The Court also reiterates that it is necessary to consider the total duration of the proceedings, from the initial procedural act until the final judgment is delivered, including any appeals that may be filed. 185 108. Regarding the complexity of the matter and the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that this is a case of some complexity, as it requires, inter alia, the gathering of a certain amount of evidence, careful and detailed analysis of the crime, and complex expert analyses, as well as being subject to proceedings that are slower by their very nature, due to the Brazilian rules of criminal procedure. 186 On the other hand, it is clear that there was only one victim and that his body was available to the police, there were two eyewitnesses willing to make statements, the scene of the crime was not difficult to access, and the primary suspects were known in the area. 109. The Court also holds that the excessive delays in the criminal proceedings were unjustified and directly attributable to the conduct of the authorities responsible for the administration of justice, 187 in line with the analysis in the preceding chapter. In this regard, the Court confirms 178 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra, para. 114, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 130. Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 130. 179 180 When analyzing the complexity of the matter, the Court has taken into account, inter alia, the complexity of the evidence, the multiplicity of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time elapsed since the State became aware of the facts that needed to be investigated, the characteristics of the remedy contained in domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131 and footnote 206. 181 Regarding the activity of the person interested in obtaining justice, the Court has taken into consideration whether their procedural conduct has in any way contributed to unduly prolonging the proceedings. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina, supra, para. 57, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131 and footnote 207. 182 The Court has understood that, in order to fully ensure the effectiveness of the judgment, the judicial authorities must act promptly and without delay, because the principle of effective judicial protection requires procedures to be implemented without undue delays or obstacles, in order to achieve its objective in a rapid, simple, and comprehensive manner. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 106, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131 and footnote 208. 183 The Court has affirmed that, to determine whether the time has been reasonable, it is necessary to take into account the effects that the duration of the proceedings have had on the legal situation of the person concerned, considering, among other factors, the matter in dispute. Cf. Case of National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, para. 148, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131 and footnote 209. 184 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 71, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 131. 185 186 Cf. Written version of Rui Carlo Dissenha’s expert opinion (evidence file, folio 6641). The expert witness Dissenha, after a thorough analysis of every procedural step in this case, likewise concluded that the judicial authorities “bore complete and total responsibility for the excessive duration of the trial.” Written version of Rui Carlo Dissenha’s expert opinion (evidence file, folio 6643). 187 31